ÿWPCM ’^2û”_ÀÙÅo—Ø•ïƒc€Yëqš(r@×÷z™ŸοŚL¨Y¹A.aȹ¸)\àÚPq¼þûÒ¥Åð œ;ÉÐS`Ïfý}øùã šHà}/IÂÞVÊÒÌ¢"Zó&è¡Âͦáp¯®…4Ÿ«Ån~ÍP¤Ó“[%kØ&p¨ É·uÞ¼YιÞAxý¨û ‚àŒew2*RÚ#^xøBRßä§*ÞØáìöWòþ<¼wáu„LÀ­§‘BD®%ð:¹ö2 é R˜·UPø¶4¾"ñĆOä™(vä)èE€‰ÎdAöð ðßÃÂáÑÁƬT¬ÏØÝËìÈ&{í~!@È éï¸{õMÉqÚ¡PÑÆœ—€K@Ûœ³‡ê·×•;²cØP’f 3ø Ð_™rTZhmAé´Ú@¥r·¢Ð³È‰W@$Ì—[åw|I‘ì I¿w IòKöV †ŒEÌPÕƒYÑë©r=¸¥3°óíž#6QXçM&ݱQ­¿N×H:l‹X™¿µ7²GˆÏ鯀SÞÑ|© ø&Q$½xUÉã ±« ámS^e§Gâ0³ïr»NŸQ䆀Ó_øš7¿[5E(ugŽñ¥Ç§v²äç%Hçb#Á\ 0D %a 0ˆg UNï 8= = zu Òï ï ^ Á wÍ 4Ñ Æå Æ«ÆqÆ7ýN   E m=)))ÜffffffffffffffffffbBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 0ëJJJJ B55 0¤R D3ö D-) 0KVV AS¡Æô 0¤º 0D^ A«¢˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular CAUTHERNDicksonrecused nonjusticiableCantrell P.J.SomersCauthernsrezoningrezonedrezoneMcCallenGovtSizemore COAKinnardChumbleyAssnCommnDecherdFiserSoukupTidwellreviewableFallinCommrKeetonGatlinburg ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt-|Û,s 9‚±,' (%1!cø(ªLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 3Ý ƒRï³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellate€courts€have€repeatedly€pointed€out€that€an€action€for€declaratory€judgment,€rather€than€a€petitionÐ ° Ðfor€common„law€writ€of€certiorari,€is€the€only€proper€vehicle€for€obtaining€judicial€review€of€a€local€legislative€bodyððsÐ tÄ Ðdecision€not€to€amend€a€zoning€ordinance.€€òòÔ_ÔFallinÔ_Ô€v.€Knox€County€Bd.€of€Ô_ÔCommrÔ_Ôððsóó,€656€S.W.2d€338,€342€(Tenn.€1983);Ð 8ˆ ÐòòCato€v.€Montgomery€County€Bd.€of€Ô_ÔCommrÔ_Ôððsóó,€No.€M2001„01846„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€369,€at€*3€n.1Ð üL Ð(May€23,€2002);€òòDay€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔDecherdÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01A01„9708„CH„00442,€1998€WL€684533,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€1,Ð À Ð1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Like€the€courts€in€òòÔ_ÔFallinÔ_Ôóó,€òòCatoóó,€and€òòDayóó,€we€will€reach€the€merits€ofÐ „Ô Ðthe€landownersðð€appeal€in€this€case€by€treating€their€petition€for€writ€of€common„law€certiorari€as€a€complaint€forÐ H ˜ Ðdeclaratory€judgment. ÒÝ ƒRï³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhite€Bluff,€Tennessee,€Municipal€Zoning€Ordinance€ðð€5.062.1(B)€(June€5,€1990).€€- ù-(|G2ï³$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä­ò»»Ô d(|3ÉQ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÉQ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼G5»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îB”G5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼G5»îîB” #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€7,€1999€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼G5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼G5»XX ö#ÔCHARLES€DALLAS€CAUTHERN,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ð úJ ÐCITY€OF€WHITE€BLUFF,€TENNESSEEÔ‡X X»¼G5Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Dickson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4820„97€€€€€€Leonard€W.€Martin,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00991„COA„R3„CV€Ô_Ô„€Filed€June€27,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óÐ ‘á  ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼G5»XX ˜#ÔÔ€X X»¼G5ÔÌThis€appeal€stems€from€two€landownersðð€efforts€to€change€the€zoning€classification€of€their€propertyÐ ŒÜ Ðfrom€residential€to€commercial€and€industrial.€€After€the€White€Bluff€Town€Council€denied€theirÐ xÈ Ðrequest,€the€landowners€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€common„law€certiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€forÐ d´ ÐDickson€County€alleging€that€the€councilððs€action€was€invalid€because€one€council€member€who€hadÐ P  Ðrecused€himself€from€voting€on€the€proposed€zoning€change€actively€opposed€their€request€andÐ <Œ Ðcaused€another€council€member€to€recuse€himself.€€The€trial€court,€sitting€without€a€jury,€denied€theÐ (x Ðlandownersðð€petition,€and€the€landowners€have€appealed.€€Treating€the€petition€as€a€complaint€ofÐ d Ðdeclaratory€judgment,€we€have€determined€that€the€effectiveness€of€the€council€memberððs€recusal€isÐ P Ða€nonjusticiable€political€question.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€theÐ ì< Ðlandowners€were€not€entitled€to€judicial€relief.€Ð Ø( ÐÌÓ×Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó,€joined.Ð t Ä ÐÌKevin€T.€Ô_ÔSommers,Ô_Ô€Kingston€Springs,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Charles€Dallas€Ô_ÔCauthernÔ_Ô€andÐ L"œ! ÐCarolyn€Sue€Ô_ÔCauthernÔ_Ô.Ð 8#ˆ" ÐÌStan€Reynolds,€Dickson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€The€City€of€White€Bluff,€Tennessee.Ð %` $ ÐÓ" ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ è&8"& ÐÌÓ  Óà  àCharles€Dallas€Ô_ÔCauthernÔ_Ô€and€Carolyn€Sue€Ô_ÔCauthernÔ_Ô€own€lots€34,€35,€and€36€of€the€HowellÐ À($( Ðsubdivision€in€the€City€of€White€Bluff.€€Their€home€at€1020€Oak€Drive€is€on€lot€35,€and€lots€34€andÐ ¬)ü$) Ð36€are€on€either€side€of€lot€35.€€All€three€lots€are€zoned€R„1€(residential),€as€is€every€lot€on€OakÐ ˜*è%* ÐDrive.€€The€Cauthernsðð€property€is€bounded€on€the€west€and€north€€by€the€lumber€cutting€operationÐ „+Ô&+ Ðâ âof€World€Wide€Woods,€Inc.€€The€companyððs€property€on€the€west€side€of€the€Cauthernsðð€propertyÐ p,À',ý ÐÔ_Ôis€zoned€industrial.€€Even€though€the€companyððs€property€to€the€north€of€the€Cauthernsðð€property€isÐ ° Ðzoned€residential,€logging€is€permitted€on€this€property€as€a€prior€nonconforming€use.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Cautherns€became€unhappy€with€having€a€sawmill€so€close€to€their€home.€€Accordingly,Ð tÄ Ðthey€tentatively€agreed€to€sell€their€three€lots€to€World€Wide€Woods.€€The€sale€was€contingent€onÐ `° Ðrezoning€lot€35€to€C„1€(commercial)€and€lot€36€to€I„1€(industrial).€€Accordingly,€the€CauthernsÐ L œ Ðapplied€to€the€White€Bluff€Planning€Commission€to€have€lots€35€and€36€rezoned.€€Following€a€publicÐ 8 ˆ Ðhearing,€the€planning€commission€recommended€approval€of€the€requested€rezoning.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Cautherns€requested€the€White€Bluff€Town€Council€to€enact€an€ordinance€rezoningÐ ü L  Ðtheir€property.€€During€the€public€hearing,€Eric€Tidwell,€a€member€of€the€town€council,€announcedÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€intended€to€recuse€himself€from€voting€on€the€Cauthernsðð€request€because€he€lived€near€theirÐ Ô$  Ðproperty€and€was€biased€against€any€zoning€change.€€Following€his€announcement,€Mr.€TidwellÐ À  Ðspoke€against€the€zoning€change€and€called€on€another€council€member,€Mack€Bennett,€to€recuseÐ ¬ü  Ðhimself€as€well.€€Mr.€Bennett€had€previously€done€survey€work€for€World€Wide€Woods€and€hadÐ ˜è  Ðapproved€the€Cauthernsðð€request€when€he€was€a€member€of€the€planning€commission.€€Mr.€BennettÐ „Ô  Ðacceded€to€Mr.€Tidwellððs€request€and€recused€himself.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€three€remaining€members€of€the€town€council€unanimously€voted€against€rezoning€theÐ H˜ ÐCauthernsðð€property.€€They€based€their€decision€on€three€factors.€€First,€they€feared€that€rezoning€theÐ 4„ ÐCauthernsðð€property€might€be€construed€as€illegal€ð ðspot€zoningðð€by€a€reviewing€court.€€Second,€theyÐ  p Ðwere€concerned€that€rezoning€the€Cauthernsðð€property€would€increase€logging€activity€and€bringÐ  \ Ðlumber€cutting€operations€closer€to€the€other€residents€on€Oak€Drive.€€Finally,€they€determined€thatÐ øH Ðlot€35€could€not€be€zoned€commercial€because€it€was€not€served€by€a€sanitary€sewer.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Cautherns€filed€a€petition€for€common„law€writ€of€certiorari׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€Chancery€Court€forÐ ¼  ÐDickson€County€alleging,€among€other€things€(1)€that€the€town€council€arbitrarily€failed€to€giveÐ ¨ø Ðconsideration€to€the€evidence€in€favor€of€rezoning€their€property,€(2)€that€Mr.€Tidwellððs€continuedÐ ”ä Ðopposition€to€their€request€for€rezoning€ð ðinvalidatedðð€the€vote,€(3)€that€Mr.€Bennett€was€ð ðwrongfullyÐ €Ð Ðrequiredðð€to€recuse€himself,€and€(4)€that€White€Bluff€has€acted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€byÐ l¼ Ðallowing€industrial€development€to€surround€their€property€but€refusing€to€rezone€their€property€forÐ X ¨ Ðits€highest€and€best€use.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Cauthernsðð€petition€on€the€grounds€that€theÐ D!” ÐCouncil€did€not€act€illegally,€arbitrarily,€or€capriciously€when€it€denied€the€Cauthernsðð€request€toÐ 0"€  Ðrezone€their€lots.€€The€Cautherns€now€appeal€from€this€judgment.Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" Їà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ° Ðà@ ìàòòò òThe€Roles€Played€By€Messrs.€Tidwell€and€Bennettó óóóˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àWe€first€take€up€the€two€related€issues€regarding€the€participation€of€Messrs.€Tidwell€andÐ tÄ ÐBennett€in€the€town€councilððs€consideration€of€the€Cauthernsðð€rezoning€request.€€The€Cautherns€argueÐ `° Ðthat€Mr.€Tidwellððs€vocal€opposition€to€rezoning€their€property€after€he€recused€himself€from€votingÐ L œ Ðon€their€request€and€his€request€that€Mr.€Bennett€likewise€recuse€himself€somehow€invalidated€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcouncilððs€decision.€€These€arguments€reflect€a€fundamental€misconception€regarding€the€courtsðð€roleÐ $ t Ðwhen€asked€to€review€legislative€decisions.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAmending€a€zoning€ordinance€is€a€legislative€act.€€òòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2dÐ è 8  Ð633,€639€(Tenn.€1990)òò;€Family€Golf€of€Nashville,€Inc.€v.€Metro.€Govððt€of€Nashvilleóó,€964€S.W.2d€254,Ð Ô$  Ðòòóó258€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€The€procedures€adopted€by€a€legislative€body€for€the€conduct€of€itsÐ À  Ðbusiness€and€its€decisions€regarding€a€particular€legislative€issue€are€not€subject€to€the€same€standardÐ ¬ü  Ðof€review€routinely€used€to€review€the€fairness€of€judicial€or€administrative€proceedings.€€In€judicialÐ ˜è  Ðand€administrative€proceedings,€the€litigants€are€entitled€to€the€cold€neutrality€of€an€impartialÐ „Ô  Ðtribunal.€€òòDavis€v.€Liberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,€564€(Tenn.€2001)€(judicial€tribunal);€òòMartinÐ pÀ Ðv.€Sizemoreóó,€No.€M1997„00203„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€950190,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€22,Ð \¬ Ð2001)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(administrative€tribunal);€òòKinnard€v.€Kinnardóó,€986Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€220,€227€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(judicial€tribunal).€€Thus,€judges€and€members€ofÐ 4„ Ðadministrative€tribunals€must€step€aside€when€their€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.€Ð  p ÐòòChumbley€v.€Peopleððs€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€165€Tenn.€655,€659,€57€S.W.2d€787,€788€(1933)€(judges);Ð  \ ÐòòTennessee€Cable€Television€Assððn€v.€Tennessee€Public€Serv.€Commððnóó,€844€S.W.2d€151,€164„65Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€same€cannot€be€said€for€the€legislative€arena.€€Persons€seeking€essentially€legislativeÐ ¼  Ðdecisions€from€legislative€bodies€are€not€entitled€to€the€same€degree€of€impartiality.€€Members€ofÐ ¨ø Ðlegislative€bodies€are€not€acting€like€judges€when€they€consider€a€proposed€change€in€an€existingÐ ”ä Ðzoning€ordinance.€€As€this€court€has€pointed€out:€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àLegislators,€however,€do€what€legislators€do;€they€listen€toÐ X ¨ Ðtheir€constituents;€they€test€the€wind;€they€try€to€please€as€manyÐ D!” Ðpeople€as€possible,€consistent€with€the€constitution€and€goodÐ 0"€  Ðconscience.€€And€they€are€not€to€be€condemned€for€doing€so.€€That€isÐ #l! Ðtheir€job.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌòòDay€v.€City€of€Decherdóó,€1998€WL€684533,€at€*3.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€question€of€recusal€by€members€of€local€legislative€bodies€in€the€context€of€amendmentsÐ ¸'#& Ðto€a€zoning€ordinance€is€not€new.€€Approximately€twenty€years€ago,€landowners€who€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunsuccessful€in€having€their€property€rezoned€challenged€the€legislative€bodyððs€decision€on€the€basisÐ )à$( Ðthat€three€of€the€local€legislators€were€biased€against€their€proposal€for€political€reasons.€€Sensing€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfutility€of€challenging€the€decision€on€the€legislatorsðð€failure€to€recuse€themselves,€the€landownersÐ h+¸&* Ðargued€that€the€proceeding€was€ð ðquasi„judicialðð€and,€therefore,€that€they€were€entitled€to€an€impartialÐ ° Ðhearing€based€only€on€the€facts€presented€to€the€legislative€body.€€This€court€rejected€theÐ œì Ðcharacterization€of€the€proceeding€as€ð ðquasi„judicialðð€and€upheld€the€local€legislative€bodyððsÐ ˆØ Ðdecision.€€òòFiser€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€584€S.W.2d€659,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€The€òòóócourts€cannotÐ tÄ Ðinquire€into€the€motives€or€methods€of€the€local€legislative€body€in€matters€such€as€this.€€òòWhite€v.Ð `° ÐHenryóó,€199€Tenn.€219,€230,€285€S.W.2d€353,€358(1955);€òòDavidson€County€v.€Rogersóó,€184€Tenn.Ð L œ Ð327,€333„34,€198€S.W.2d€812,€815€(1947);€òòSoukup€v.€Sellóó,€171€Tenn.€437,€441,€104€S.W.2d€830,€831Ð 8 ˆ Ð(1937).€€Thus,€a€legislative€action€by€a€local€legislative€body€will€not€be€second„guessed€by€the€courtsÐ $ t Ðsimply€because€one€or€more€of€the€legislators€were€biased€either€for€or€against€the€proposal€underÐ  ` Ðconsideration.€€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€White€Bluff€Town€Councilððs€decisions€regarding€amendments€to€its€local€zoningÐ Ô$  Ðordinance€are€essentially€political€questions.€€Unless€the€town€council€violates€the€town€charter,€stateÐ À  Ðlaw,€or€the€state€or€federal€constitutions,€itððs€actions€are€not€subject€to€judicial€review.€€While€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€12„4„101(c)(3)(A)€(1999)€contains€rules€governing€the€conduct€of€members€of€localÐ ˜è  Ðgoverning€bodies€who€have€a€direct€interest€in€a€public€contract,€we€can€find€no€statute€or€other€ruleÐ „Ô  Ðof€law€forbidding€members€of€a€town€council€who€have€recused€themselves€from€considering€aÐ pÀ Ðchange€in€a€tractððs€zoning€classification€from€lobbying€other€council€members€either€in€favor€of€orÐ \¬ Ðagainst€the€proposed€zoning€change.€€Thus,€neither€Mr.€Tidwellððs€conduct€after€he€recused€himselfÐ H˜ Ðnor€Mr.€Bennettððs€decision€to€recuse€himself€or€the€effects€of€their€actions€on€the€remaining€councilÐ 4„ Ðmembers€are€reviewable€by€the€courts.€€The€Cauthernsðð€remedy€is€at€the€ballot€box.Ð  p ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ øH Ðà@ÒÒìàòòò òThe€Adequacy€of€the€Basis€for€the€Town€Councilððs€Decisionó óóóˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€courts€have€consistently€used€a€deferential€standard€to€review€a€local€legislative€bodyððsÐ ¼  Ðenactment€or€revision€of€its€zoning€ordinance.€€Because€local€legislative€bodies€have€broad€discretionÐ ¨ø Ðin€zoning€matters,€òòFamily€Golf€of€Nashville,€Inc.€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€964€S.W.2d€at€260,€theÐ ”ä Ðcourts€decline€to€second„guess€a€decision€either€to€approve€or€disapprove€an€amendment€to€a€zoningÐ €Ð Ðordinance€as€long€as€the€decision€has€some€conceivable,€appropriate€basis€to€justify€it,€òòFallin€v.€KnoxÐ l¼ ÐCounty€Bd.€of€Commrððsóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€343„44,€or€if€the€issue€is€fairly€debatable.òò€€Keeton€v.€City€ofÐ X ¨ ÐGatlinburgóó,€684€S.W.2d€97,€98€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€White€Bluff€Town€Councilððs€denial€of€the€Cauthernsðð€request€to€rezone€their€propertyÐ #l! Ðeasily€passes€muster€under€this€rational€basis€test€because€the€record€contains€cogent€reasons€for€theÐ $X" Ðdecision.€€First,€allowing€the€sawmill€to€expand€its€operations€further€into€the€residentialÐ ô$D # Ðneighborhood€surrounding€Oak€Drive€would€simply€pass€the€problems€the€Cautherns€had€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðexperiencing€to€the€remaining€homeownersò ò.€€ó óSecond,€the€town€council€determined€that€rezoning€lotÐ Ì&"% Ð35€from€R„1€to€C„1€would€have€violated€another€ordinance€requiring€permitted€uses€in€C„1€districtsÐ ¼' #& Ðto€be€served€by€public€water€and€sanitary€sewer.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Third,€the€Council€found€that€rezoning€lot€36€toÐ ¨(ø#' ÐI„1€(industrial)€would€expand€the€existing€logging€operations,€thereby€increasing€the€danger€toÐ ”)ä$( Ðresidents€of€Oak€Drive.€€Finally,€the€town€council€feared€the€courts€could€invalidate€the€requestedÐ ° Ðrezoning€of€lots€35€and€36€as€illegal€ð ðspot€zoning.ðð€€Ð œì ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€dismissing€the€landownersðð€challenge€to€the€White€Bluff€TownÐ L œ ÐCouncilððs€denial€of€the€proposed€change€in€the€zoning€classification€of€their€property€and€remandÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€case€to€the€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€thisÐ $ t Ðappeal€to€Charles€Dallas€Cauthern€and€Carolyn€Sue€Cauthern€and€their€surety€for€which€execution,Ð  ` Ðif€necessary,€may€issue.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEà Ð à€€Ð À  Ð