WPCP  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0@49 D3t9 1m9 0c:w@w: 0J: 0T; 0^U; 0h; 0r< 0|< 0 = 0= 1u> 0d>U6>B).?DCW? AM?U*?@+Av~Bv|D 0wOJ 0J 0PK 0K 0L 0kM 0FN AO5OO 0DJP D/P BPV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dU!$(G.2٣$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   SCAKonigsbergM'GinnisSchmiederLazarov CivShelby("$    GGGG'dxdStuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0  DeEEӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  WXYZ[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dhhhh7Border 1ddMiC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#g  kk   YYY FILEDkX October22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.kAppellateCourtClerk   F!  #d#g  I$g         ThomasA.Peters,Trustee,isGranteeinatrustdeedconveyingthepropertytosecureHowardEdLloyd,Sr.,andwife,PeggyP.Lloyd,allofwhomweremadepartiesdefendantintheoriginalcomplaint,butaredismissedbelowandwerenotinvolvedinthisappeal.PtPtHP(HPP  'Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#MC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . g    ћ7/XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  h u` ќLjli;+'h|`  `Lߛ0 @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONCITYOFCHURCHHILL@ ) HAWKINSCOUNTY@ ) 03A019603CV00098 PlaintiffAppellant @ )@ )@ ) v. @ ) HON.WILLIAML.JENKINS,̀@ ) JUDGE @ )DWIGHTS.TAYLOR m   @ )@ )  DefendantAppellee  @ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED JOSEPHE.MAYOFCHURCHHILLFORAPPELLANTWILLIAME.PHILLIPSOFROGERSVILLEFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisisasuitbytheCityofChurchHill,actingbyandthroughtheChurchHillRegionalPlanningCommission,seekingtoenjoinDwightS.TaylorfromdevelopingamobilehomeparkoutsidethecitylimitsoftheCityofChurchHill,butwithinanareacontrolledbythePlanningCommission.  TheTrialJudgedismissedthesuit,findingthatthestatutoryauthoritygrantedthePlanningCommissiononlyappliedwhenpropertyissoldanddoesnotapplywhensitesareleased,asisthecaseinthisinstance.  ThePlanningCommissionappeals,raisingthefollowingtwoissues:    1.0 AquestionoflawwhichappearsonthefaceofthepleadingsandjudgmentoftheCourtwhethertheCourterredwhenitfoundthatsubdivisionregulationsapplyonlytothedevelopmentofpropertyforwhichthereisacontemplated"immediateorfuture"saleofthatproperty,irrespectiveofwhethertheimprovementofthepropertyrequiresconstructionofmultipletrailersites;rightsofwaytoandfromthosesitestoaccessthepublicroad;and,water,sanitation,electricalandotherutilitiesforamobilehomepark;and2.0 AquestionoflawwhichappearsonthefaceofthepleadingsandjudgmentoftheCourtwhethertheCourterredwhenitdeclaredthataplanningcommissionmaynotproperlydenyapprovalofaPlanforDevelopmentofaMobileHomeParkforthesolereasonthatsuchapprovalwouldallowAppelleetoestablishapreexistingusewhichheeitherknowsorcouldhaveknownwasforbiddenbytheproposedRegionalZoningOrdinancebeingdeliberatedbythegoverningbodyoftheCityofChurchHill.      Thefacts,whichareforthemostparttakenfromthepleadingsoftheparties,areaccuratelystatedbytheTrialJudgeinhisfinalorder:    {T]heCourtfinds,andthepartiesagree,thatPlaintiff'sgoverningbodyhasappointedtheChurchHillRegionalPlanningCommissiontoexercisethepowersgrantedtoitpursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn.133401etseq. ;thattheChurchHillRegionalPlanningCommissionexercisesjurisdictionpursuanttolawovertheChurchHillPlanningRegion,composedoftheterritoryoftheCityofChurchHill,togetherwithterritoryadjoiningbutoutsideoftheCityofChurchHill,nopartofwhichismorethanfive(5)milesbeyondthelimitsoftheCityofChurchHill;thatDefendantshavevariousinterestsinacertain5.82+acreparcelofpropertylocatedoutsidetheboundariesoftheCityofChurchHill,butwithintheboundariesoftheChurchHillPlanningRegion;thatPlaintiff,byitsRegionalPlanningCommissionhasestablishedSubdivisionRegulationspursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn.133401etseq. ,governingthesubdivisionofpropertylocatedwithintheChurchHillPlanningRegion;thattheseregulationsincludeGeneralRequirementsandMinimumStandardsofDesignforMobileHomeParks;thatthedefinitionofthetermsubdivisionisfoundat Tenn.CodeAnn.133401(4)(B) ;thatDefendant,DWIGHTS.TAYLORproposestorent,butnotsell,trailerspacesinhisproposedmobilehomeparktobelocatedonhisproperty;thatPlaintiffgaveitsstatutorypublicnoticeofintenttoadoptaRegionalZoningOrdinancepursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn.137303 ;thatthestatutorysix(6)monthabeyanceperiodhasnowexpired;thattheChurchHillRegionalPlanningCommissioncertifiedaRegionalZoningOrdinancetotheBoardofMayorandAldermanoftheCityofChurchHill,whichhasnotyetadoptedit.      ResolutionofthefirstissueturnsuponaportionofT.C.A.Title13,Chapter3,Part4,whichcreatesRegionalPlanningCommissions,andspecificallyastotheissueraisedinthisappeal,T.C.A.133104(B):    (B)"Subdivision"means,inallcountiesexceptthoseinsubdivision(4)(A),thedivisionofatractorparceloflandintotwo(2)ormorelots,sites,orotherdivisionsrequiringnewstreetorutilityconstruction,oranydivisionoflessthanfive(5)acresforthepurpose,whetherimmediateorfuture,ofsaleorbuildingdevelopment,andincludesresubdivisionand,whenappropriatetothecontext,relatestotheprocessofresubdividingortothelandorareasubdivided.      ThePlanningCommissioncontendsthattheChancellor'sinterpretationofthemeaningofthewords"thedivisionofatractorparceloflandintotwo(2)ormorelots,sites,orotherdivisionsrequiringnewstreetorutilityconstruction,"wastoorestrictiveaconstruction,andthatamoreappropriateonewouldbetoincludelotsrented,aswellasthosesold.  Ontheotherhand,Mr.Taylor,quotingfromadictionarydefinition,makesthefollowingargumentinhisbrief:     Theword"divide"isdefinedas"Toseparate;tobreakapart;.Webster'sIllustratedDictionary,PublishersCompany,Inc.1962.Theword"separate"isdefinedas"Tobecomedetachedfromthewhole;todrawapart;togodifferentways;todivide;tobreakawayfromthewhole;tokeepapart..." Webster's ,supra. RealpropertyintheStateofTennesseemayonlybedividedorseparatedbyaninstrumentofconveyanceinwriting. Title66,Chapter5,TennesseeCodeAnnotated ;Hampton'slesseev.M'Ginnis,1Tenn.286(1808).      Zoninglawsgenerally,ofwhichtheCodeSectioninquestionisakin,areinderogationofanowner'srightsinpropertyandaretobestrictlyconstrued.Statev.CityofNashville,207Tenn.672,343S.W.2d847(1961);Statev.CityofOakHill,204Tenn.353,321S.W.2d557(1959);Bolesv.CityofChattanooga,892S.W.2d416(Tenn.App.1994);AndersonCountyv.RemoteLandfillServices,833S.W.2d903(Tenn.App.1991).WebelievetheTrialJudgewascorrectinemployingsuchaconstruction.Insofinding,werecognizethattheproblemssoughttobealleviatedwouldresultasmuchfromleasingtrailersitesasfromsellingthem.Weconclude,however,thatthePlanningCommission'sremedylieswiththeLegislature,andnotwiththecourts.  ThefollowingallegationsfromthecomplaintarethepredicateforthesecondissuethePlanningCommissionraises:     Pursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn2914101etseq .,theTennesseeDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,Plaintiffseeksadeclarationoftherights,statusandotherlegalrelationsbetweenthepartiesrelatingtotheapplicationoftheRegionalZoningOrdinancepromulgatedbyPlaintifftotheimprovementsbeingmadetothepropertyofDefendants.12. AcopyofResolutionNo.223,adoptedbytheBoard ofMayorandAldermanoftheCityofChurchHill, wasdeliveredtotheHawkinsCountyExecutive, wherebyPlaintiffgaveitsstatutorypublicnotice ofintenttoadoptaRegionalZoningOrdinance pursuantto Tenn.CodeAnn.137303 .13. Thestatutorysix(6)monthabeyanceperiodhas nowexpired;and,theChurchHillRegional  PlanningCommissioncertifiedaRegionalZoning OrdinancetotheBoardofMayorandAldermanof theCityofChurchHill,whowillsoonconsider theadoptionofsaidordinanceonthefirstoftwo requiredreadings.14.0 SaidRegionalZoningOrdinance,ifordainedasrecommended,wouldplacethepropertywithinaZoningDistrictwhichwouldprohibituseofDefendants'propertyforaMobileHomePark.15.0 PlaintiffmayproperlydenyapprovalofaPlanfor DevelopmentofaMobileHomePark,ifDefendant DWIGHTS.TAYLORweretosubmitonewhilethe RegionalZoningOrdinanceisunderconsideration, wheresuchapprovalwouldallowhimtoestablisha usewhichheeitherknowsorcouldhaveknownwas forbiddenbytheproposedordinance;ifitwere otherwise,suchwouldnullifytheentireworkof themunicipalityinendeavoringtocarryoutthe purposeforwhichthezoninglawwasenacted.      Insupportofthesecondissue,thePlanningCommissionarguesthattheCityofChurchHillispoisedtoadoptaregionalzoningordinance,whichwouldunquestionablypreventMr.Taylorfromproceedingasheproposes.  ThePlanningCommissioninsiststhatitisappropriatethatMr.TaylorbeenjoinedfromproceedinginlightoftheimminentadoptionofaregionalzoningordinancebytheCityofChurchHill.Insupportofthisproposition,thePlanningCommissioncitesStateexrel.SCAChem.,etc.vKonigsberg.ThefactsinthatcasearesuccinctlyandaccuratelysetoutinanunreportedopinionbyJudgeLeeRussell,SpecialJudge,sittingforthisCourtinStateexrel.v.CityofFranklinMunicipalPlanningCommission,filedinNashvilleonMarch21,1996,asfollows:     Thegeneralruleiswellestablishedandisagreedbyallpartiesheretobethatthereisno"vestedright"tocontinuityofzoningorintheissuanceofabuildingpermitorapprovalofasiteplanbasedonpriorzoningunlessactualconstructionhascommenced. Stateexrel.SCAChemicalWasteServices,Inc.v.Konigsberg ,636S.W.2d430(Tenn.1982); Schmiederv.Lazarov ,390S.W.2d197(Tenn.1965); HoweRealtyCo.v.CityofNashville ,141S.W.2d904(Tenn.1940). The SCAChemical caseisinstructive.Inthatcase,achemicalcompanyappliedforacleanairpermitfromtheShelbyCountyHealthDepartmentonSeptember4,1990,aspartoftheprocessofbuildingawastedisposalfacilityinMemphis.Overamonthlater,onOctober6,1980,thegoverningbodiesofMemphisandShelbyCountyjointlypassedacomprehensivenewzoningschemewhich,amongotherthings,addedrestrictionstowasteprocessing.ThenewzoninghadaneffectivedateofJanuary1,1981.OnOctober9,1980,SCAChemicalappliedforagradingpermittobegintheprocessofconstructingitsnewfacility.TheChiefBuildingOfficerofShelbyCountydidnotactontheapplication.OnOctober22,1980,theBoardofShelbyCountypassedaresolutionwhichdirectedallcountyagenciesnottoissuepermitstoSCAChemicaluntilJanuary15,1981,andthentorequireSCAChemicaltomeetallstandardsineffectonJanuary15,1981.TheresolutionwasdirectedatSCAChemicalbynameandappliedtonootherentity. OnOctober27,1980,SCAChemicalwentintocourtseekingamandamustoforcetheShelbyCountyHealthDepartmenttoissuethecleanairpermit.OnNovember3,1980,ShelbyCountyamendeditsresolutionofOctober22,1980,tomakeitapplytoanyproposedplantforhazardouswastetreatment.ThetrialcourtruledthattheCountyBoardofCommissionershadnotactedarbitrarily,capriciously,illegally,unlawfully,orbeyonditsjurisdictioninadoptingtheresolutionsofOctober22,1980,andNovember3,1980,andthatthereforetheHealthDepartmentwasundernoobligationstoissuethepermit.AfterthetrialbutnotuntilJanuary15,1981,overfourmonthsfollowingtheinitialapplication,thecleanairpermitwasissued. OurSupremeCourtobservedthatordinancesofthetypepassedbyMemphisandShelbyCountyarecalled"stopgap"or"interim"ordinancesandthattheir"functionandpurposeistopreservetemporarilythestatusquoofthemunicipalityorsectionthereoftowhichtheyapplyuntilapendingpermanentzoningregulation[can]befinallyadopted." Id .At434.TheSupremeCourtgoesontoexplainthat"becauseittakesmuchtimetoworkoutthedetailsofacomprehensivezoningplananditwouldbedestructiveoftheplanif,duringtheperiodofitsincubationandconsideration,personsseekingtoevadeitsoperationshouldbepermittedtoenteruponacourseofconstructionthatwouldprogresssofarastodefeat,inwholeorinpart,theultimateexecutionoftheplan." Id .At435 citingwithapprovalMillerv.BoardofPublicWorks ,195Cal.777,234P.381(1925).      ItwouldseemthatSCAChemicalisinapposite.Wesaythisbecausetherecordshowsthatthefirstorder,styled"FinalOrder"wasenteredonOctober26,1995.Thereafter,amotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentwasfiled.Itpointedoutthat"thepreviousjudgmentdoesnotaddressanyissuerelatingtothebondforrestrainingorder,"andaskedthatthejudgmentbeamendedtoshowthatitwasenteredpursuanttoRule54.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichconvertsanotherwiseinterlocutoryorderintoafinalone.ThemotionwasgrantedbyanentryofasecondfinalorderonJanuary10,1996,whichisidenticaltothefirst,withtheexceptionofthefollowingparagraph:    4.0 ThatpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.Pro.54.02theCourtdirectstheentryofafinaljudgmentuponitsexpressdeterminationthatthereisnojustreasonfordelayanduponitsexpressdirectionfortheentryofjudgment.      Thus,itappearsthematterhasbeenbeforetheCityCounciloftheCityofChurchHillsincebeforethefilingofthecomplaintonSeptember12,1995,untilthedateofthesecondfinalorder,andpresumablyhasnotbeenacteduponatthetimeoforalargumentinJuly1996,norasofthedateofentryofthisopinion.Otherwise,wearesatisfiedthatcounselforthePlanningCommissionwouldhavecalledthisfacttoourattentionundertheprovisionsofRule14oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurerelatingtopostjudgmentfacts.  Weaccordinglyconcludethataninjunctionwouldbeinappropriateunderthefactsofthiscase"topreservetemporarilythestatusquoofthemunicipalityorsectionthereoftowhichtheyapplyuntilapendingpermanentzoningregulationcanbefinallyadopted."Toputitanotherway,wedonotbelieveMr.Taylorshouldbeprecludedindefinitelyfromdevelopingtheproperty,awaitingactionoftheCityofChurchHill,whichmaynevercome.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainsttheCityofChurchHillanditssurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.