WPC .# U: % 0(b w@4Sgv 0J~ 0T 0^ 0hz 0r 0|T 0 0V 1u 0d[U *B) AQ c 0D) 0@m 0D DC D/4 Bc B D3 AM  v~. vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - UUDDDUӀ_#3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  7Border 1dd((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd!#%C << G  !  #d#  ""     YYY FILEDXJuly1,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ! .       \RA'\7XXdd7      !R*+%A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE X̜BENNIEDAYandKARENDAY,  )      ) Petitioners/Appellants,  )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019708CH00442̜VS.      )      ) FranklinChancery      ) No.14,381CITYOFDECHERD,   )OTISB.SMITH,JR.,MAYOR,  )HANKWEDDINGTON,BILL  )VANHOOSIER,FRANKGREEN,AND )DARYLDONEY,COMMISSIONERS, )      ) Respondents/Appellees.  )@ APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFFRANKLINCOUNTY@ ATWINCHESTER,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEL.CURTISSMITH,SITTINGBYINTERCHANGEMICHELLEM.BENJAMIN102FirstAvenue,N.W.P.O.Box177Winchester,TN37398 AttorneyforPetitioners/AppellantsJ.RUSSELLFARRARDEBORAHR.SOWELL̜FARRAR&BATES211SeventhStreetNo.,Suite320Nashville,Tennessee372191823 AttorneyforRespondents/Appellees̛̜@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED̛̜       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE̜ @ OPINION X  PropertyownersallegedinapetitionforcommonlawcertiorarithatthecityofDecherdactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyinrefusingtorezonetheirpropertyfromresidentialtocommercial.TheChanceryCourtofFranklinCountydismissedthepetition.Weaffirm.@ I.   BennieDayandwife,KarenD.Day,ownacitylotinDecherd.OnMarch1,1995theyfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtofFranklinCountyallegingthattheCityanditscommissionershadarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyrefusedtorezonethepropertyfromresidentialtocommercialuses.ThepetitionprayedforthewritofcertioraritoissuepursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.Ϝ279107;thatthecourtsetasidetheCitysactionandenjointheCityfromenforcingthezoningordinance.  TheCityfiledananswerandmovedforsummaryjudgment.Thepetitionersalsomovedforsummaryjudgment.ThecourtsorderdeniedbothmotionsbutfoundthattheCitysdenialoftherequestedzonechangewassupportedbytherecord.Thecourt,therefore,deniedthepetitionforthecommonlawwritofcertiorari.@ II.   Ifthecourtsorderisconfusing,theconfusioncan,perhaps,betracedtotheinitialpleadinginthiscase.Thecommonlawwritofcertiorariisnottheappropriatevehiclebywhichtoreviewthe purelylegislativeactsofalegislativebody.Fallinv.KnoxCountyBd.ofCommissioners,656S.W.2d338(Tenn.1983).Thestatutethatauthorizesissuanceofthewritauthorizesitsusetoreviewtheactionsofaninferiortribunalexercisingjudicialfunctions.Tenn.CodeAnn.278101.Inthiscontext, judicialreferstoaproceedingwhereadecisionisrenderedonarecordmadeatahearingrequiredbylaw.L.Jaffe,JudicialControlofAdministrativeAction,166(1965).Thewritofcertiorariitselfisacommandtothelowertribunaltocertifytherecordtothereviewingcourt.  InFallintheSupremeCourtheldthat8 8 anactionfordeclaratoryjudgment,asprovidedbyϜT.C.A.29141012914113,ratherthanapetitionforcertiorariistheproperremedytobeemployedbyonewhoseekstoinvalidateanordinance,resolutionorotherlegislativeactionofcounty,cityorothermunicipallegislativeauthorityenactingoramendingzoninglegislation.656S.W.2dat342.TheCourtwentontopointoutthatanactioncreatingoramendingzoningregulations, isalegislative,ratherthanadministrative,actionandisnotordinarilyaccompaniedbyarecordofevidence,asinthecaseofanadministrativehearing.Id.SeealsoMcCallenv.CityofMemphis,786S.W.2dϜ633(Tenn.1990).  SincelawyerscontinuetofilepetitionsforcertioraritoreviewpurelylegislativezoningdecisionsfifteenyearsaftertheFallindecisionapparentlythestoryneedstoberetold.WeaddourvoicestotheSupremeCourtschorus.  InFallintheCourtdid,however,gettothemeritsofthecasebytreatingthepetitionasoneforadeclaratoryjudgment.WewilldothesameinthisϜcase.Oncewearriveatthatpoint,however,weencounteranevengreaterlimitationonthescopeofreview.Legislativeclassificationsinazoninglawarevalidifanypossiblereasoncanbeconceivedtojustifythem.Stateexrel.SCAChemicalWasteServices,Inc.v.Konigsberg,636S.W.2d430(Tenn.1982).ϜSpecifically,zoningdecisionsareimmunefromjudicialinterferenceifthevalidityoftheordinanceis fairlydebatable.Fallinv.KnoxCountyBd.ofCommissioners,656S.W.2d338(Tenn.1983).  InthiscasetheDayspurchasedtheresidentialpropertyandpresentedaplattotheDecherdplanningcommissionseekingazonechangesothatthepropertycouldbeusedforminiwarehouses.TheplanningcommissionrecommendedthechangebutapprisedMr.DayofthefactthattheordinancewouldhavetopassthreereadingsbeforetheBoardofMayorandAldermen.Theordinancepassedthefirsttworeadings,butwhenmovedforpassageonthirdandfinalreading,itfailedforlackofasecond.  Thepropertyinvolvedisalargelotonthehighwayoutoftown.Anoldhomesitsatthebackofthelot,andthepropertyonthreesidesiscurrentlyzonedforresidentialpurposes.Thestatecommunityplanner,whoconsultswithϜtheCityonlanduseproblems,advisedtheplanningcommissionthathehadreservationsaboutusingthepropertyforminiwarehouses,consideringotherplansforthedowntownarea.  Wethinkthatthequestionofwhetherthepropertyshouldhavebeenrezonedisfairlydebatable.TheBoard,performingitslegislativefunction,decidednottorezonetheproperty,andthatdecisionisnotourstochange.  TheappellantsarguethattheBoardsactionshouldbesetasidebecausetheBoardrefusedtorezonethepropertysolelyonthebasisofneighborhoodopposition.TheyarguethatthiscourtsdecisioninHoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBoardofZoningAppeals,924S.W.2d900(Tenn.App.1996),makestheBoardsdecisionarbitrary.  WehavealreadynotedthattherecordcontainsotherevidenceonwhichtheBoardcouldhaveacted.Buttheappellantsargumentisbasedonafundamentallyflawedviewofthetwocases.HooverinvolvedanapplicationforaconditionalusepermitbeforetheBoardofZoningAppeals.UnderthezoningϜordinance,theapplicantwasentitledtothepermitwhenalltheordinancerequirementshadbeenmet.TheBoardofZoningAppealsinthatcasewasactinginanadministrativeorquasijudicialcapacity,compilingarecordthatcouldbereviewedunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari.SeeFallinv.KnoxCo.Bd.ofCommissioners,656S.W.2d338(Tenn.1983).Inthatcaseitwaswrongtobaseadecisionsolelyontheneighborhoodopposition.  Legislators,however,dowhatlegislatorsdo:theylistentotheirconstituents;theytestthewind;theytrytopleaseasmanypeopleaspossible,consistentwiththeconstitutionandagoodconscience.Andtheyarenottobecondemnedfordoingso.Thatistheirjob.  ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofFranklinCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellants.  Ӝ̛      ____________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:̜__________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINION:WALTERW.BUSSART,SPECIALJUDGE   X  @