ÿWPC† «ÑäÑnj·ñ„=¶¡d€Øe- Mà óL”£é\…ÉSPöèÒ;…aÙyî1Òßûn’p-éajûwzQý¦ ód×c³ÿlEÇH®7ó'3`¸p¡ï5Â9C°\ïzݛΔÙºë mnœ»Ç(p¥òRuýBDª5^³:~0»”LSŽ”¶óxâÒÒ¡LÆËI±h„ó¸Dõ¸Þ@½[Y±ê7H Ù.‰Â"Íö\£[Y}–Äòhïö`PÇ?–OÑš?K½¼ O“xqÊi‹àª_-½€PÇ#¿ü¥v5%3–"Ó ¤SõÁ&¼œ(´&îlu; '^ü=r¦CRT×eFúá–®ž÷þBç[5Ñ…g`ë. Ê3á¦N‰¯`q„=÷=»ì~O¡¸ ‹6ï<9ÇGå¶-ýH‰¡ DymŒÇ +`8ô®š<_zEÔþ<ÐjÐV©òy-LnºéÕ±óOš~è·8êä|‡›éþ6’?ªñ^Þ»çć½òÜàpv5ÓücWDóÀÉg(‹&?eà§ 9¬²œѹzW‹Ô¥x_D'3rÆ ÜB_ÿÅ7€€Éá4,%¼zq·?¯7 PÈOš‘”Ëo!¤Âbb#Á\ % ‚# 0ˆ¥ UN- 0D{ ¿ zÇ ÒA ^  w 4# 7 ÆF Æ ÆÒƘ^N` mbbEyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyb{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ 0냃ƒƒ Bnn 0¤‹ D3/ D-b 0K ASÚÆ- 0¤ó 0D— A«Û˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» xÝ ƒRÞ¹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôàåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€disputed€parcel€109€was€originally€included€in€the€final€plat€indicated€in€the€restraining€order.Ð ° ÐInasmuch€as€this€appeal€concerns€only€parcel€109,€the€remaining€provisions€of€the€injunction€are€not€related€herein.(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŽ’‹-s š‚,-B011C83|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2Þ¹$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôàåò»»Ô d(|3ÉO$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÉO$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼S »»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îFüS ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼S »îîFü #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€8,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼S ÔÌò òÔ#†¼S »XXaô#ÔTHE€CITY€OF€OAK€HILLòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔAAMPÔ_Ô,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XaX»¼S Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„807„II€€€€€€Carol€McCoy,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00688„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€concerns€the€City€of€Oak€Hillððs€efforts€to€enforce€its€exclusively€residential€zoningÐ xÈ  Ðrestrictions€over€a€parcel€of€land€situated€at€the€cityððs€eastern€border.€€The€city€appeals€the€trialÐ d´ Ðcourtððs€finding€that€ð ðparcel€109ðð€was€located€outside€of€Oak€Hillððs€city€boundary€and,€therefore,€notÐ P  Ðsubject€to€the€cityððs€zoning€ordinances.€€We€affirm€the€action€of€the€trial€court.Ð <Œ ÐÓÏÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼S »àXaŠ#ÔÔ‡XaX.¼S ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòDonÐ ì< ÐR.€Ash,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌDouglas€Berry,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€The€City€of€Oak€Hill.Ð ° ÐÌKarl€F.€Dean,€Philip€D.€Ô_ÔBaltzÔ_Ô€and€John€L.€Kennedy,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€TheÐ ˆØ ÐMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.Ð tÄ ÐÓ?ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼S »XXan#ÔÔ‡XaX»¼S ÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼S »XXa #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XaX»¼S Ôà  àOn€March€7,€2000,€Ô_ÔAAMPÔ_Ô,€LLC€and€Mark€Marshall€began€the€grading€and€construction€forÐ $"t! Ða€fruit€and€flower€stand€on€a€piece€of€real€property€sixty€feet€by€two€hundred€feet,€fronting€a€sectionÐ #`" Ðof€Franklin€Pike€near€that€roadððs€intersection€with€Old€Hickory€Boulevard.€€As€a€direct€result€ofÐ ü#L# ÐÔ_ÔAAMPÔ_Ôððs€commencement€of€construction,€the€City€of€Oak€Hill,€on€March€14,€2000,€filed€anÐ è$8 $ Ðapplication€in€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court€seeking€a€temporary€restraining€order€andÐ Ô%$!% Ðpermanent€injunction€against€further€construction€on€that€property.€€As€grounds,€the€city€alleged€thatÐ À&"& Ðits€exclusively€residential€zoning€restrictions€prohibited€commercial€construction€on€the€site,€and€thatÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÔ_ÔAAMPÔ_Ô€had€violated€the€municipal€ordinances€of€Oak€Hill€by€commencing€construction€without€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðrequired€building€permits€issued€by€the€city.€€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àOn€March€14,€2000,€the€trial€court€issued€a€temporary€restraining€order€based€upon€OakÐ \+¬&+ ÐHillððs€application,€enjoining€Ô_ÔAAMPÔ_Ô,€LLC,€and€Mark€Marshall€from€doing€or€performing€ð ðany€furtherÐ H,˜', Ðgrading,€filling,€stripping,€excavation,€or€other€disturbance€to€the€natural€ground,€or€work€of€any€kindÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôfor€which€a€building€permit€is€required€under€the€ordinances€of€the€City€of€Oak€Hill,€on€or€within€theÐ ° Ðproperty€known€as€the€AAMP,€LLC€subdivision,€final€plat€dated€July€7,€1997,€and€as€approved€byÐ œì Ðthe€City€of€Oak€Hill€on€July€17,€1997,€without€first€having€obtained€a€valid,€building€permit€fromÐ ˆØ Ðthe€city.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€issuance€of€the€temporary€injunction,€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€filed€the€supplementalÐ L œ Ðaffidavit€of€Barnett€Williams€and€the€affidavit€of€Roger€Fuqua.€€In€his€affidavit,€Mr.€Fuqua€opined,Ð 8 ˆ Ðin€part:€€ð ðIn€my€opinion,€Parcel€109,€although€excess€land€owned€at€one€time€by€the€State€ofÐ $ t ÐTennessee€Department€of€Transportation,€was€never€considered€by€the€state€to€be€a€part€of€the€right„Ð  ` Ðof„way€of€Franklin€Pike,€but€lies€entirely€to€the€west€of€this€right„of„way€and€thus€within€the€City€ofÐ ü L  ÐOak€Hill.ðð€€For€its€part,€AAMP,€LLC€responded€attaching,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€affidavit€of€Lon€West,€whoÐ è 8  Ðopined€that€the€parcel€as€described€in€Mr.€Fuquaððs€affidavit€was€actually€within€the€municipalÐ Ô$  Ðboundaries€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.€€The€trial€courtÐ À  Ðsubsequently€modified€its€temporary€restraining€order€pending€a€full€hearing€to€be€held€on€NovemberÐ ¬ü  Ð29,€2000.€€After€a€full€hearing,€in€which€the€court€heard€from€both€Mr.€Roger€Fuqua€and€Mr.€LonÐ ˜è  ÐWest,€in€addition€to€Freddy€Stroupe€and€Roger€Payne,€the€court€specifically€found€that€the€subjectÐ „Ô  Ðparcel€was€outside€the€jurisdiction€of€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€and€not€subject€to€the€cityððs€zoningÐ pÀ Ðrestrictions.€€Fuqua€gave€one€opinion€as€to€the€location€and€description€of€Oak€Hillððs€boundary,€whileÐ \¬ ÐWest,€Stroupe€and€Payne€gave€differing€opinions.€€The€court€specifically€relied€upon€the€opinionsÐ H˜ Ðof€Stroupeòò€óóand€Payne.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€city€argues€that€the€courtððs€construction€of€the€Petition€for€Incorporation€is€incorrect€asÐ  \ Ða€matter€of€law,€in€that€it€fails€to€presume€that€the€members€of€Oak€Hill€in€their€petition€intended€toÐ øH Ðtake€as€within€the€boundary€of€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€property€including€the€center€line€of€FranklinÐ ä4 ÐPike.€€In€determining€the€intent€of€the€petition,€the€court€looked€to€all€of€the€surroundingÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances,€including€the€several€maps€stipulated€by€the€parties€below€and€the€testimony€of€theÐ ¼  Ðexperts.€€Of€particular€significance€in€the€trial€courtððs€inquiry€are€the€following€findings€of€fact.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` à1.à ¸ àThe€central€part€of€this€litigation€is€a€determination€as€to€whether€aÐ €Ð Ðsmall€triangular€piece€of€land€referred€to€as€Parcel€109€is€within€the€jurisdiction€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€City€of€Oak€Hill,€or€is€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€ofÐ X ¨ ÐNashville.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à2.à ¸ àIn€1928,€the€Interurban€Railroad€owned€Parcel€109€and€in€1929,€theÐ 0"€  ÐRailroad€quitclaimed€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€the€right€of€wayÐ #l! Ðfor€certain€real€property,€including€Parcel€109.Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à3.à ¸ àThe€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€did€not€record€thisÐ ô$D # Ðquitclaim€deed€until€1977.€€During€the€time€period€between€1929€and€1977,€the€StateÐ à%0!$ Ðof€Tennessee€used€portions€of€the€quitclaimed€property€to€widen€Franklin€Pike.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à4.à ¸ àIn€1952,€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€was€chartered€as€a€municipal€corporationÐ ¸'#& Ðand€as€part€of€its€corporation,€Oak€Hill€sought€to€preserve€its€residential€character€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadopted€certain€zoning€which€permitted€only€residential€use€of€property€within€theÐ ° Ðcity€limits€of€Oak€Hill.€€This€zoning€plan€map€reflects€a€triangular€notch€alongÐ œì ÐFranklin€Pike€and€specifically€excludes€this€notch€from€the€city€limits€of€Oak€Hill.€ÐˆØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à5.à ¸ àAt€the€time€of€the€incorporation,€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€also€adopted€aÐ tÄ Ðmajor€street€plan€which€also€reflects€a€specific€triangular€notch€outside€the€city€limitsÐ `° Ðof€Oak€Hill.ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à6.à ¸ àOak€Hill€recorded€the€major€street€plan€in€the€Registerððs€Office€forÐ 8 ˆ ÐDavison€County,€Tennessee,€and€this€documents€stays€of€record€as€of€the€date€of€thisÐ $ t Ðhearing.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à7.à ¸ àOn€April€1,€1963,€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€consolidated€theirÐ ü L  Ðgovernment,€and€the€City€of€Oak€Hill,€located€within€the€boundaries€of€the€newlyÐ è 8  Ðconsolidated€Metropolitan€Government,€continued€as€an€independently€governingÐ Ô$  Ðsatellite€city€operating€within€the€geographical€boundaries€of€Nashville.ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à8.à ¸ àBy€1960,€the€Interurban€Railroad€no€longer€existed.€€During€theÐ ¬ü  Ð1960's,€the€Metropolitan€Tax€Assessor€decided€to€declare€land€previously€owned€byÐ ˜è  Ðthe€then€defunct€Interurban€Railroad€would€belong€to€property€owners€adjacent€to€theÐ „Ô  ÐRailroadððs€real€property.€€Some€of€the€adjacent€property€owners€knew€that€the€TaxÐ pÀ ÐAssessor€was€assigning€them€ownership€in€such€real€estate€and€some€did€not.€€SinceÐ \¬ Ðthe€quitclaim€deed€to€Parcel€109€had€not€been€put€to€record€by€the€State,€the€adjacentÐ H˜ Ðproperty€owners€to€Parcel€109€appeared€to€have€an€ownership€interest€in€Parcel€109Ð 4„ Ðby€the€actions€of€the€Metropolitan€Tax€Assessor.€€Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð  \ Ðà8  àà ` à11.à ¸ àOn€December€6,€1996,€Mr.€Lon€F.€West,€Metro€Zoning€Administrator,Ð øH Ðwrote€Mr.€Summar€and€stated€that€Parcel€109€was€zoned€for€commercial€use€andÐ ä4 Ðfurther€that€Parcel€109€was€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Metropolitan€GovernmentÐ Ð  Ðof€Nashville€and€not€within€the€jurisdiction€of€Oak€Hill.€€€In€reaching€this€conclusion,Ð ¼  ÐMr.€West€examined€a€number€of€documents€including€a€1944€City€and€CountyÐ ¨ø ÐPlanning€Map€(Exhibit€29)€which€indicated€that€the€triangular€notch€as€indicated€onÐ ”ä ÐFranklin€Pike€was€part€of€the€State€right€of€way.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.€Ð l¼ Ðà8  àà ` à22.à ¸ àThe€primary€issue€before€this€Court€is€whether€Parcel€109€is€properlyÐ X ¨ Ðwithin€the€city€limits€of€Oak€Hill€or€within€the€city€limits€of€the€MetropolitanÐ D!” ÐGovernment€of€Nashville.€€A€careful€and€thorough€review€of€the€maps€introducedÐ 0"€  Ðinto€evidence€revealed€some€maps€reflecting€Parcel€109€within€the€city€limits€of€OakÐ #l! ÐHill,€and€some€maps€with€Parcel€109€within€the€Metropolitan€Government€ofÐ $X" ÐNashville.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à23.à ¸ àThe€Charter€for€the€metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÐ à%0!$ ÐDavidson€County,€Section€1.01€states,€in€part,€that€the€governmental€and€corporateÐ Ì&"% Ðfunctions€now€vested€in€the€City€of€Nashville,€a€municipality,€are€hereby€consolidatedÐ ¸'#& Ðwith€the€government€and€corporate€functions€of€the€County€of€Davidson.€€SuchÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsolidation€was€pursuant€to€the€constitutional€power€granted€by€the€TennesseeÐ )à$( Ðâ âConstitution€and€T.C.A.€7„1„108.€€Said€consolidation€resulted€in€the€creation€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðestablishment€of€a€new€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,Ð ° ÐTennessee.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àà ` à24.à ¸ àMetro€Code,€Section€1.02,€states€that€the€territory€embraced€in€theÐ ˆØ ÐMetropolitan€Government€shall€be€the€total€area€of€Davidson€County€as€the€sameÐ tÄ Ðmay€be€based€and€established€upon€the€effective€date€of€its€charter,€which€was€AprilÐ `° Ð1,€1963.€€The€Charter€of€the€Metropolitan€Government,€Section€18.15,€states€that€anyÐ L œ Ðcity€in€Davidson€County€not€abolished€by€this€Charter€shall€continue€to€exist€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðfunction€the€same€as€prior€to€adoption€of€this€Charter,€except€that€no€such€city€shallÐ $ t Ðextend€its€boundaries€by€annexation€of€any€area€of€the€Metropolitan€Government.€Ð  ` ÐTherefore,€the€boundaries€of€Oak€Hill,€as€set€forth€in€its€Charter,€could€not€beÐ ü L  Ðextended.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à25.à ¸ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€7„1„106€addresses€excluded€smaller€citiesÐ Ô$  Ðand€Section€18.15€of€the€Metropolitan€Charter€follows€this€same€provision.€Ð À  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€6„51„302€allows€municipalities€to€adjust€their€commonÐ ¬ü  Ðboundaries€by€contract€between€themselves,€so€as€to€avoid€confusion€and€uncertaintyÐ ˜è  Ðabout€the€location€of€the€contiguous,€or€to€form€a€contiguous€boundary€to€existingÐ „Ô  Ðright€of€way.ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à26.à ¸ àThe€City€of€Oak€Hill€recorded€maps€at€the€time€of€its€incorporationÐ \¬ Ðwhich€reflected€that€Parcel€109€is€outside€the€city€limits€of€Oak€Hill.€€TennesseeÐ H˜ ÐDepartment€of€Transportation€held€title€to€that€notch€which€appears€to€be€Parcel€109,Ð 4„ Ðfrom€1929€to€1979.€€Oak€Hill€did€not€include€Parcel€109€within€its€city€limits€whenÐ  p Ðit€incorporated€in€1952,€and€was€unable€to€do€so€since€the€property€belonged€to€theÐ  \ ÐState€of€Tennessee€and€was€outside€the€incorporated€limits€of€the€City€of€Oak€Hill.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à27.à ¸ àThe€State€of€Tennessee€acquired€Parcel€109€for€right€of€way,€andÐ ä4 Ðduring€the€time€the€State€owned€Parcel€109,€it€was€designated€by€the€State€for€use€asÐ Ð  Ðright€of€way.€€Parcel€109€was€owned€and€used€by€the€State€for€right€of€way€purposesÐ ¼  Ðuntil€the€State€of€Tennessee€quitclaimed€its€interest€in€Parcel€109€to€Mr.€Summar€inÐ ¨ø Ð1978.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à28.à ¸ àThe€Court€heard€testimony€from€various€individuals€who€gaveÐ €Ð Ðopinions€as€to€the€importance€of€the€maps€that€were€introduced€into€evidence,€but€theÐ l¼ ÐCourt€gave€the€most€significant€weight€and€credibility€to€the€testimony€of€FreddieÐ X ¨ ÐStroupe€and€Lon€West€of€the€Metropolitan€Government,€and€to€a€lesser€degree,€theÐ D!” Ðtestimony€of€Mr.€Payne€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à29.à ¸ àThe€City€of€Oak€Hill€did€not€include€Parcel€109€within€its€jurisdictionÐ #l! Ðwhen€it€incorporated€in€1952.€€The€City€of€Oak€Hill€could€not€acquire€Parcel€109Ð $X" Ðwithin€its€city€limits€and€jurisdiction€through€a€new€zoning€map€done€in€1988€withoutÐ ô$D # Ða€written€agreement€with€Metro,€nor€could€it€acquire€jurisdiction€of€Parcel€109€withinÐ à%0!$ Ðits€city€limits€by€approval€of€Mr.€Marshallððs€subdivision€plat€which€erroneouslyÐ Ì&"% Ðincluded€Parcel€109.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌThese€findings€of€fact€come€to€the€Court€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€and€thisÐ )à$( ÐCourt€finds€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€those€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€€13(d).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAppellant€raises€four€issues€with€the€ultimate€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€First,€the€city€urgesÐ ° Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€conclusion€that€parcel€109€was€outside€of€Oak€Hillððs€boundary.€Ð œì ÐSecond,€Appellant€urges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€Oak€Hill€could€not€have€legallyÐ ˆØ Ðincluded€property€owned€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€within€its€city€limit.€€Third,Ð tÄ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€applying€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€6„51„302€and€fourth,€that€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€erred€in€holding€that€Oak€Hill€could€not€extend€its€boundaries.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOak€Hillððs€petition€for€election€to€incorporate,€as€filed€with€the€Davidson€County€ElectionÐ $ t ÐBoard,€describes€the€boundaries€of€the€territory€to€be€incorporated€as€the€City€of€Oak€Hill:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà ` àBeginning€in€the€southerly€margin€of€Thompson€Lane€where€same€intersectsÐ è 8  ÐFranklin€Pike,€said€beginning€point€being€the€northwest€corner€of€the€north€line€of€theÐ Ô$  ÐLiggett€property€easterly€to€a€point€in€the€westerly€margin€of€the€right„of„way€of€theÐ À  Ðmain€line€of€the€Louisville€and€Nashville€Railway;€thence€southwardly€along€the€westÐ ¬ü  Ðmargin€of€the€right„of„way€line€to€a€point€in€the€intersection€of€said€right„of„way€andÐ ˜è  ÐOld€Franklin€Pike,€being€the€northwest€corner€of€said€intersection€and€at€the€junctionÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€overpass€of€said€Old€Franklin€Pike€over€said€railroad€right„of„way;€thenceÐ pÀ Ðwestwardly€from€said€point€across€the€Franklin€Pike€to€a€point€in€the€southwestÐ \¬ Ðcorner€of€intersection€of€Redwood€Drive€and€Franklin€Pike;€thence€southerly€alongÐ H˜ Ðthe€west€margin€of€Franklin€Pike€to€a€point€in€said€margin€250€feet€north€of€theÐ 4„ Ðnorthwest€intersection€of€said€Franklin€Pike€and€Old€Hickory€Boulevard;€thence€atÐ  p Ðright€angles€westwardly€150€feet;€thence€southwardly€and€parallel€with€Franklin€RoadÐ  \ Ðto€the€northerly€margin€of€Old€Hickory€Boulevard;€thence€with€the€north€margin€ofÐ øH ÐOld€Hickory€Boulevard€westwardly€to€a€point€in€the€north€margin€of€said€BoulevardÐ ä4 Ð5280€feet€from€the€northwest€corner€of€the€intersection€of€the€Franklin€Pike€and€OldÐ Ð  ÐHickory€Boulevard;€.€.€.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court,€therefore,€was€faced€with€a€petition€that€used€the€word€ð ðmarginððÐ ”ä Ðinterchangeably€with€ð ðright„of„way.ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àEvery€one€of€these€issues€involves€the€location€of€the€easterly€boundary€of€the€City€of€OakÐ X ¨ ÐHill.€€Along€these€lines€this€Court€finds€the€following€instructive,€ð ðGenerally€speaking€theÐ D!” Ðdetermination€as€to€whether€or€not€boundaries€exist,€and€what€they€are€is€a€matter€of€law€for€theÐ 0"€  Ðcourt.€€Their€location€is€a€matter€of€fact€for€the€determination€of€the€trier€of€facts.ðð€€Dennis€Jensen,òòÐ #l! ÐMcQuillin€Municipal€Corporationsóó,€ðð€7.05€(3d€ed.€1996)€(footnote€omitted).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àOur€Supreme€Court€has€expanded€upon€this€general€statement,€holding€that€ð ðWe€of€the€courtsÐ à%0!$ Ðdetermine€what€are€the€corporate€limits€already€established€and€we€determine€by€our€inquiry€whetherÐ Ì&"% Ðor€not€these€boundaries€as€attempted€to€be€established€by€the€municipal€power€comply€with€the€law.€Ð ¸'#& ÐWe€have€no€authority€to€act€for€the€municipal€body€in€its€legislative€capacity.ðð€€òòCity€of€Johnson€CityÐ ¤(ô#' Ðv.€State,€ex€rel.€John€Maden,€et€al.óó;€202€Tenn.€318,€327,€304€S.W.2d€317,€322€(1957).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€cityððs€first€argument€on€appeal€concerns€the€determination€of€the€existence€andÐ ° Ðâ âdescription€of€the€city€boundaries.€€ð ðWhen€a€deed€calls€for€a€boundary€along€a€street€it€is€generallyÐ œì Ðheld€that€where€it€appears€clearly€from€the€whole€instrument,€in€conjunction€with€the€surroundingÐ ˆØ Ðcircumstances,€that€the€grantor€intended€to€reserve€the€fee€in€the€street,€such€intent€will€be€givenÐ tÄ Ðeffect;€when€it€does€not€so€appear,€it€will€be€presumed€that€the€grantee€takes€to€the€middle€of€theÐ `° Ðstreet.€€òòCity€of€Nashville€v.€Lawrenceóó,€(1925)€153€Tenn.€606,€284€S.W.€882.€€òòSee€also,€VanderbiltÐ L œ ÐUniversity€v.€Williamsóó€(1925)€152€Tenn.€664,€280€S.W.€689;€òòReeves€&€Co.€v.€Allenóó,€(1898)€101Ð 8 ˆ ÐTenn.€412,€47€S.W.€495.ðð€€òòPatrick€v.€Curtis€Person€Inv.,€Inc.óó,€603€S.W.2d€148,€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $ t Ð1980).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAppellant€would€urge€the€adoption€of€the€center€line€doctrine€to€extend€the€boundary€of€OakÐ è 8  ÐHill€into€the€middle€of€Franklin€Pike.€€It€is€well€to€note€at€this€point€that,€since€as€this€Court€isÐ Ô$  Ðreviewing€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€those€findings.€€òòSee€TennesseeÐ À  ÐFarmers€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.€American€Mutual€Liability€Ins.€Co.óó,€840€S.W.2d€933,€at€936€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€1992).Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àWhen€applied€to€deeds€and€conveyances€the€center€line€presumption€requires€two€predicateÐ pÀ Ðdeterminations.€€The€first€involves€the€call€of€the€deed.€€The€deed€must€call€for€a€description€boundedÐ \¬ Ðby€or€along€the€side€of€a€street.€€The€second€predicate€determination€is€that€the€conveyor€of€the€realÐ H˜ Ðproperty€so€bounded€have€title€to€the€property€conveyed.€€In€other€words,€a€grantor€could€not€conveyÐ 4„ Ðproperty€to€the€center€line€of€a€street€without€first€having€title€to€that€street.€€In€reviewing€the€call€ofÐ  p Ðthe€petition,€this€Court€notes€first€the€ambiguous€use€of€the€word€margin,€second,€the€particularÐ  \ Ðmonument€noted€in€the€petition,€and€third,€the€actual€course€of€the€eastern€boundary€of€Oak€Hill.€Ð øH ÐThe€resultant€ambiguity€in€the€description€when€viewed€in€light€of€the€contemporaneous€maps€filedÐ ä4 Ðtherewith€suggests€no€intent€on€the€part€of€the€incorporators€to€ð ðconveyðð€to€themselvesòò€óó€territoryÐ Ð  Ðincluding€the€center€line€of€Franklin€Pike.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àSince€this€Court€finds€that€the€citizens€of€Oak€Hill€did€not€intend€to€draw€the€cityððsÐ ”ä Ðboundaries€over€the€center€line€of€Franklin€Road,€we€therefore€must€determine€where€the€line€is€toÐ €Ð Ðbe€drawn€in€light€of€the€attendant€circumstances,€exercising€our€review€in€light€of€the€presumptionÐ l¼ Ðof€correctness€of€factual€findings€on€appeal.€€The€court€found€as€a€fact€that€maps€filedÐ X ¨ Ðcontemporaneous€with€the€petition€for€election€indicated€the€omission€of€parcel€109€from€the€cityÐ D!” Ðboundaries.€€The€trial€court€also€found€as€a€fact€that€at€the€time€of€Oak€Hillððs€incorporation,€parcelÐ 0"€  Ð109€was€owned€by€the€state€highway€department.€€The€court€heard€testimony€from€three€expertsÐ #l! Ðconcerning€the€meaning€of€the€word€ð ðmarginðð€as€it€is€used€in€the€petition.€€The€court€heard€evidenceÐ $X" Ðas€to€what€the€ð ðright„of„wayðð€for€Franklin€Road€entailed€at€the€location€of€parcel€109€and,€theÐ ô$D # Ðevidence€heard€below€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€incorporators€of€Oak€Hill€could€indeed€include€a€state€right„of„wayÐ ¸'#& Ðwithin€the€city€boundaries,€and€thus€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€holding€to€the€contrary.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHowever,€this€Courtððs€decision€hinges€upon€whether€the€incorporators€of€Oak€Hill€òòintendedóó€toÐ )à$( Ðinclude€parcel€109€within€the€city€boundaries.€€Since€we€hold€they€did€not€so€intend,€the€question€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhether€they€could€is€not€necessary€to€the€decision.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àLikewise,€the€Courtððs€application€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€6„51„302€is€notÐ ° Ðnecessary€to€the€determination€of€the€intent€of€the€city€incorporators€at€the€time€of€Oak€HillððsÐ œì Ðincorporation.€€As€for€the€expansion€or€contraction€of€boundaries,€our€holding€that€Oak€HillððsÐ ˆØ Ðoriginal€boundaries€excluded€parcel€109€necessitates€a€holding€that€any€later€maps€drawn€to€includeÐ tÄ Ðparcel€109€within€Oak€Hill€were,€by€definition,€an€attempt€to€expand€those€boundaries€in€violationÐ `° Ðof€the€Metropolitan€Charter€section€18.15.€€Inasmuch€as€section€18.15€prohibits€such€expansion,Ð L œ Ðparcel€109€cannot€be€included€within€the€City€of€Oak€Hill.€€As€such,€the€1988€reissue€of€the€cityÐ 8 ˆ Ðzoning€and€street€maps€to€include€parcel€109€are€ineffective€in€their€purpose.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€the€final€analysis,€we€are€seeking€the€intention€of€the€City€of€Oak€Hill€at€the€time€of€itsÐ ü L  Ðincorporation€as€to€whether€or€not€parcel€109€was€included€within€its€corporate€limits.€Ð è 8  ÐContemporaneous€documents€filed,€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€original€charter€of€incorporation,Ð Ô$  Ðincluded€a€zoning€plan€map€and€a€major€street€plan,€both€of€which€clearly€indicated€that€parcel€109Ð À  Ðwas€not€within€the€corporate€limits.€€Nothing€has€happened€since€the€charter€of€incorporation€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðcould€suffice€to€expand€the€corporate€limits€of€Oak€Hill.€€To€the€extent€that€parol€evidence€isÐ ˜è  Ðadmitted€as€to€the€meaning€of€the€terms€ð ðmarginðð€and€ð ðright„of„way,ðð€the€trial€court€accepted€theÐ „Ô  Ðfactual€evidence€offered€by€the€appellees.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€factualÐ pÀ Ðfindings€of€the€chancellor.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€finding€of€the€trial€court€that€parcel€109€is€outside€the€limits€of€Oak€Hill€and€thereforeÐ 4„ Ðnot€subject€to€Oak€Hillððs€restrictive€zoning€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€furtherÐ  p Ðproceedings€as€necessary€in€the€trial€court.Ð  \ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE