ÿWPCB ´Û|ŒÁ%3uö¡Þ"÷¹XJê¹?D òP`Î?Ú$dtš!úCì1ù_­ò;[Îþ–‡T3½ñ˜ÏRž@ÌY†u]ôó3¼J€ ‘“†4üwØ´Vpm_¶ñŽÜ9æ¾Ú>¾âåÁ‡NØìy_, ¥ó‹VB€æÐ êÒß8õ]¾Ñ–c"ÍÚ}sÚÏÛ)ʇ3Sêûœx”ª:ßqÓ…‹·2¹³Ôv|E݆Lï×`ô¤Gï“M …¬­<CjZhË> §cÉÓ¯*ªb¥®”2+C¯ TÕ(+\ÞSâÒ¼4OÙ À!ÃJç±ïd‡7iå.3Ÿ½ZwÙ˜êêMqÆ/*˜,.4#: .Ñ:$Ž>/âv\ó)z–ï ™óƒn ê9es¶ÅSÍËU zCV´‰BèLž(u“EZ©G½óÌçr„LLÓ,ÇY ⹉4:tÈÜêô÷55…Ƹu ô«Uts¤s<±ÝZ6.p¹ÌíYÂÖ Ñl*Ÿ”T’0/×»ã=H 1"õdOtB5yƒº&—XRÛxI/kžYºÙôu鬛X‘1‘ìy\-*å°Ü×6¡*'fwC,÷WEs¾x£ê±1‰Þ#Á %Ï ^ Õ 0ˆá UNi w· 4» zÏ ÒI  * m, C ÆK ÆÆ×Æ1cN” 0D––EÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚbÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 0ëääää BÏÏ 0¤ì D3 D-à 0Kðð A\;Æ— 0¤] 0D A«EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE D5ð B%˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ï}f) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM)h foØ¡ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 'Ý ƒR q$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€òòFather€Ryanóó€cites€Code€section€13„7„207,€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€derives€itsÐ ° Ðauthority€from€section€13„7„109.€€The€wording€of€these€sections€are€virtually€identical€with€regard€to€a€boardððs€power,Ð tÄ Ðthe€only€difference€being€that€section€13„7„207€grants€power€to€municipal€boards€and€section€13„7„109€grants€power€toÐ 8ˆ Ðcounty€boards.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2 q$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú•ò»»Ô d(|3G…$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`Nþÿ<<Cÿÿ xdðƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G…$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK€€€€)ûÿ!dxdxüÿP PdÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F»»»ÔÑ8€qXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îMÜFÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼F»îîMÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€5,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XqX»¼FÔÌò òÔ#†¼F»XXqñ#ÔGREGORY€Ô_ÔDOMINCOVITCHÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€WILSON€COUNTY€Ð úJ ÐBOARD€OF€ZONING€APPEALSÔ‡XqX»¼FÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98429€€€€€€C.€K.€Smith,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02334„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€6,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_Ô€Ð Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPetitioner/Appellant,€Gregory€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô€(ð ðPetitionerðð)€made€a€request€to€the€Wilson€CountyÐ  ð  ÐBoard€of€Zoning€Appeals€for€a€ð ðuse€permissible€on€appealðð€to€establish€a€250€foot€communicationÐ ŒÜ Ðtower€on€his€A„1€zoned€property.€€Defendant/Appellee,€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€AppealsÐ xÈ Ð(ð ðthe€Boardðð)€denied€this€request.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô€petitioned€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€to€theÐ d´ Ðchancery€court€and€subsequently€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€in€that€court.€€The€chancellorÐ P  Ðgranted€Petitionerððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€finding€that€the€Board€did€not€have€jurisdictionÐ <Œ Ðto€deny€the€permit€for€construction€of€the€communications€tower.€€The€Board€appealed€the€chanceryÐ (x Ðcourtððs€decision.€€We€affirm€the€chancery€courtððs€ruling€finding€that€Petitioner€had€presentedÐ d Ðevidence€fulfilling€all€requirements€set€out€in€Wilson€Countyððs€zoning€ordinance€regarding€cell€towerÐ P Ðlocation,€and€thus,€the€Board€had€no€jurisdiction€to€deny€the€permit€to€Petitioner.€€€Ð ì< ÐÓîÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼F»àXq¯#ÔÔ‡XqX.¼FÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBòòENóó€H.€CòòANTRELLóó,€P.J.,€M.S.,óó€andÐ œì ÐòòPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóó,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌMichael€R.€Jennings,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Wilson€County€Board€of€ZoningÐ `!°  ÐAppeals.Ð L"œ! ÐÌWilliam€E.€Farmer,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Gregory€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô.Ð $$t# ÐÓY ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼F»XXqˆ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼FÔÐ ü%L!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼F»XXqÍ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼FÔÓ  ÓI.à0  àFACTS€PRESENTED€BEFORE€THE€BOARD.ÐÔ'$#'(#(# ÐÌà  àPetitioner€applied€to€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€for€a€permit€to€establishÐ ¬)ü$) Ða€250€foot€communications€tower€on€a€29€acre€parcel€of€property€zoned€A„1€(agricultural).€€UtilityÐ ˜*è%* Ðuse,€such€as€the€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€communications€tower,€is€a€ð ðuse€permissible€on€appealðð€under€WilsonÐ „+Ô&+ ÐCountyððs€zoning€laws.€€òòSee€óóWilson€County€Zoning€Ordinance€5.20.03(U).€€The€application€wasÐ p,À', Ðsubmitted€and€presented€by€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô,€the€company€proposing€to€locate€the€tower€on€PetitionerððsÐ \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_Ôproperty.€€Wilson€County€has€also€enacted€the€following€additional€regulations€regarding€cell€towerÐ ° Ðlocation:Ð œì ÐÌÓ  ÓREGARDING€CELL€TOWER€SITE€LOCATIONS€IN€WILSON€COUNTYÐ tÄ ÐSEPTEMBER€27,€1996Ð `° ÐÓ  ÓÌà8  àA.à ` àApplicant€shall€provide€written€evidence€that€they€have€investigated€co„Ð 8 ˆ Ðlocation€on€an€existing€tower€within€one€mile€of€the€proposed€site.€€New€towers€shallÐ $ t Ðnot€be€permitted€unless€the€applicant€demonstrates€to€the€reasonable€satisfaction€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€governing€authority€that€no€existing€tower€or€structure€can€accommodate€theÐ ü L  Ðapplicantððs€proposed€antenna.€€Evidence€to€that€effect€may€consist€of€any€of€theÐ è 8  Ðfollowing:ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à1.€€No€existing€towers€or€structures€are€located€within€the€geographic€Ð ¬ü  Ѐ€€€€area€required€to€meet€the€applicantððs€engineering€requirements.€Ð˜è ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à2.€€Existing€towers€or€structures€are€not€of€sufficient€height€to€meet€Ð pÀ Ѐ€€€€the€applicantððs€engineering€requirements.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à3.€€Existing€towers€or€structures€do€not€have€sufficient€structural€€€€€€Ð 4„ Ѐ€€€€strength€to€support€the€applicantððs€proposed€antenna€and€related€€Ð  p Ѐ€€€equipment.Ð \` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à4.€€The€applicantððs€proposed€antenna€would€cause€electromagnetic€€Ð ä4 Ѐ€€€€interference€with€the€antenna€on€the€existing€tower.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à5.€€Applicant€is€unable€to€work€out€an€acceptable€agreement€to€co„€€€Ð ¨ø Ѐ€€€€locate.Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àB.à0` Ð Ð à1.à ¸ àApplicant€shall€provide€written€evidence€that€any€construction€orÐ l¼ Ðalteration€of€more€than€200€feet€in€height€above€the€ground€level€at€its€siteÐ X ¨ Ðcomplies€with€all€FAA€requirements.ÐD!”` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.à ¸ àApplicant€shall€provide€written€evidence€that€any€constructionÐ #l! Ðor€alteration€of€greater€height€than€an€imaginary€surface€extendingÐ $X" Ðoutward€and€upward€at€one€of€the€following€slopes€meets€allÐ ô$D # Ðapplicable€FAA€requirements.à0` x` xàÐà%0!$xx ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àa.à  à100€to€1€for€a€horizontal€distance€of€20,000Ð ¸'#& Ðfeet€from€the€nearest€point€of€the€nearest€runway€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeach€airport€in€or€near€Wilson€County,€excludingÐ )à$( Ðâ âheliports.€Ð|*Ì%)¸ ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àb.à  à25€to€1€for€a€horizontal€distance€of€5,000€ft.Ð ° Ðâ âfrom€the€nearest€point€of€the€nearest€landing€and€takeÐ œì Ðoff€area€of€each€heliport€in€or€near€Wilson€County.€ÐˆØ¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àC.à0` Ð Ð àApplicant€shall€provide€room€for€vehicle€doing€maintenance€to€maneuver€onÐ `° Ðthe€property.ÐL œ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àD.à0` Ð Ð àOn„site€buildings€shall€only€be€used€for€the€storage€of€necessary€on„siteÐ $ t Ðequipment.€€Offices€shall€be€prohibited€on€the€same€site€as€a€tower,€unlessÐ  ` Ðpermitted€on€the€same€site€in€that€zoning€district.Ðü L ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€Petitioner,€through€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô,€submitted€evidence€that€co„location€had€beenÐ Ô$  Ðinvestigated,€and€the€only€suitable€tower€within€one€mile€would€not€provide€the€necessary€coverageÐ À  Ðof€the€service€area.€€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€also€provided€a€letter€from€the€FAA€which€stated€that€the€tower€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€be€a€hazard€to€air€traffic€safety€and€provided€evidence€that€the€tower€met€the€horizontal€distanceÐ ˜è  Ðrequirements€of€the€Cell€Tower€Site€Location€(B)(2).€€In€addition,€Wilson€County€required€a€fallÐ „Ô  Ðradius€the€same€height€as€the€tower€and€required€that€the€cell€tower€be€the€primary€use€for€theÐ pÀ Ðproperty€on€which€it€is€located.€€Both€of€these€additional€requirements€were€met€by€the€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_ÔÐ \¬ Ðproperty€and€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ôððs€proposal.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€primary€arguments€presented€before€the€Board€by€the€tower€opponents€wasÐ  p Ðregarding€a€private€air€strip.€€Opponents€asked€that€the€permit€be€denied€due€to€the€towerððs€proximityÐ  \ Ðto€this€airstrip€or€that€the€height€of€the€tower€be€restricted.€€Evidence€was€presented€that€theÐ øH Ðorientation€of€the€runway€was€primarily€in€a€north€south€direction€and€that€the€proposed€tower€wouldÐ ä4 Ðbe€over€3000€feet€to€the€east€of€this€runway.€€Thus,€the€tower€would€not€lie€within€the€approach€orÐ Ð  Ðlanding€zone€of€this€air€park.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àHowever,€opponents€to€the€cell€tower€presented€evidence€which€attempted€to€show€that€thisÐ ”ä Ðtower€would€violate€FAA€regulations€governing€òòpublicóó€airports€and,€thus,€posed€a€danger€to€theÐ €Ð Ðòòprivateóó€airport.€€They€argued€that€the€Board€should€be€able€to€regulate€the€tower€to€force€complianceÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€FFA€òòpublicóó€airport€guidelines.€€To€combat€this€argument,€additional€evidence€was€presentedÐ X ¨ Ðby€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€in€the€form€of€testimony€from€an€FAA€air€space€consultant.€€This€consultant€testifiedÐ D!” Ðthat€the€FAA€does€not€regulate€or€protect€òòprivateóó€airports€like€Fall€Creek€Air€Park.€€FAA€regulationsÐ 0"€  Ðonly€protect€public€and€military€airports€and,€thus,€do€not€apply€to€this€case.€€The€FAA€would€onlyÐ #l! Ðrequire€the€tower€to€be€marked€and€lighted,€and€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€would€comply€with€these€requirements.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àBoth€sides€seem€to€think€that€the€issue€extant€in€this€case€was€whether€or€not€the€òòBoardóó€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€authority€to€regulate€the€location€of€cell€towers€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€13„24„Ð Ì&"% Ð301€to€„303€(1999).€€These€sections€read€as€follows:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà ` à13„24„301.€€Telephone€or€telegraph€services€„€Exclusion€from€localÐ )à$( Ðregulation.€„€No€municipal,€county€or€regional€planning€commission€or€any€municipalÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€county€legislative€body€shall,€by€ordinance€or€otherwise,€exclude€the€location€orÐ h+¸&* Ðrelocation€of€any€facility€used€to€provide€telephone€or€telegraph€services€to€theÐ ° Ðpublic.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à13„24„302.à  àFacilities€included.€„€Such€facilities€include€those€essential€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€provision€of€telephone€and€telegraph€services€such€as€central€office€exchangesÐ `° Ðand€microwave€towers€which€require€a€specific€location€in€order€to€provide€the€mostÐ L œ Ðefficient€service€to€the€public.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à13„24„303.à  àRegulations€allowed.€„€The€exclusion€of€location€from€localÐ  ` Ðregulation€does€not€preclude€the€exercise€of€reasonable€municipal€and€county€policeÐ ü L  Ðpowers€including,€but€not€limited€to,€permit€requirements,€landscaping,€off„streetÐ è 8  Ðparking€or€set„back€lines€as€an€exercise€of€police€powers.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„24„301€to€„303€(1999).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOpponents€of€the€communication€tower€argued€that€this€statute€does€not€exclude€regulationÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€location€of€these€towers€through€use€of€a€countyððs€police€powers€and€that€safety€of€the€airportÐ pÀ Ðshould€come€under€these€police€powers.€€They€attempted€to€show,€through€federal€regulationsÐ \¬ Ðgoverning€òòpublicóó€airports,€that€this€tower€would€present€a€safety€hazard€to€the€small€òòprivateóó€airstripÐ H˜ Ðin€the€vicinity€and€requested€the€Board€to€use€its€ððpolice€powersðð€to€regulate€and,€thus,€exclude€thisÐ 4„ Ðtowerððs€location.€€In€addition,€opponents€attempted€to€argue€that€regulation€of€this€type€of€tower€wasÐ  p Ðpermissible€under€the€theory€that€the€tower€was€not€essential€to€the€provision€of€telephone€service,Ð  \ Ðnor€was€a€specific€location€required.Ð øH ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€presented€evidence€of€its€plan€for€providing€cellular€service€to€Wilson€County€andÐ Ð  Ðhow€this€plan€was€implemented.€€Specifically,€it€showed€how€the€cell€towers€relayed€signals€andÐ ¼  Ðdemonstrated€the€necessity€of€towers€being€located€in€areas€where€they€could€work€together€toÐ ¨ø Ðprovide€the€total€coverage€necessary€for€optimal€cellular€service.€€Ô_ÔPowertelÔ_Ô€showed€that€in€WilsonÐ ”ä ÐCounty€it€had€planned€ten€tower€sites,€four€of€which€would€be€co„located€on€other€cellular€towers.€Ð €Ð ÐOnly€six€of€these€towers€would€necessitate€new€construction.€€In€searching€for€tower€locations€theyÐ l¼ ÐÔ_ÔlayedÔ_Ô€out€specific€areas€known€as€search€rings€within€which€each€tower€would€need€to€be€located€toÐ X ¨ Ðprovide€the€cellular€coverage.€€The€areas€in€which€towers€could€be€located€were€further€limited€byÐ D!” ÐWilson€Countyððs€fall€radius€and€principle€use€requirements.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÔ#†¼F»XXq+ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼FÔÌà  àAt€the€end€of€this€hearing,€the€Board€disapproved€Petitionerððs€request€for€a€permit€to€buildÐ $X" Ðthis€communications€tower€on€his€property.€€The€reason€for€disapproving€this€request€was€ð ðbased€onÐ ô$D # Ðthe€safety€of€that€airport€or€that€airstrip.ðð€€No€other€findings€were€made€by€the€board€on€which€aÐ à%0!$ Ðdenial€of€the€permit€was€based.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌII.à0  àHEARING€BEFORE€THE€CHANCERY€COURT.Ф(ô#'(#(# ÐÌà  àAfter€denial€of€his€request,€Mr.€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô€petitioned€the€chancery€court€for€Writ€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐCertiorari€to€review€the€ruling€of€the€Board.€€After€this€writ€was€filed,€Petitioner€filed€a€Motion€forÐ h+¸&* ÐSummary€Judgment.€€Attached€to€the€Motion€was€additional€evidence€not€presented€at€the€hearingÐ ° Ðin€front€of€the€Board.€€This€evidence€consisted€of€responses€to€requests€for€admissions€submitted€toÐ œì ÐRick€Gregory€and€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals,€answers€to€interrogatories€submittedÐ ˆØ Ðto€Rick€Gregory,€an€affidavit€of€Gregory€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô,€and€numerous€other€documents€attached€toÐ tÄ ÐMr.€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ôððs€affidavit.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€the€chancery€court€held€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  à5.à8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€further€found€that€on€September€27,€1996€Wilson€CountyÐ  ` Ðadopted€certain€regulations€regarding€cell€tower€site€locations.Ðü L ` x` x Ðà  àÌà  à6.à8 ` àFurthermore,€the€Court€found€that€the€proposed€communicationsÐ Ô$  Ðtower€to€be€placed€on€the€property€of€Gregory€Ô_ÔDomincovitchÔ_Ô€did€notÐ À  Ðviolate€Wilson€County€regulations€governing€location€of€cellularÐ ¬ü  Ðtelephone€towers.Иè ` x` x ÐÌà  à7.à8 ` àIn€addition,€the€Court€found€that€the€private€airstrip€is€a€runway€whichÐ pÀ Ðruns€north€and€south,€and€since€the€tower€is€located€over€3,000€feetÐ \¬ Ðeast€of€the€runway,€the€tower€would€not€in€anyway€violate€the€cellÐ H˜ Ðtower€site€location€regulations€of€Wilson€County.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà  à8.à8 ` àThe€Court€failed€to€find€the€proposed€cellular€telephone€tower€to€beÐ  \ Ðin€violation€of€any€of€the€police€powers€that€have€been€adopted€byÐ øH ÐWilson€County.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà  à9.à8 ` àTherefore,€it€is€the€finding€of€the€Chancery€Court,€pursuant€to€theÐ ¼  Ðprovisions€of€òòÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ôóó€Sec.€13„24„301,€that€the€Wilson€County€BoardÐ ¨ø Ðof€Zoning€Appeals€was€without€authority€to€exclude€the€location€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€proposed€cellular€telephone€tower.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€10.à8 ` àAccordingly,€the€Chancery€Court€found€that€on€August€28,€1998€theÐ X ¨ ÐWilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€acted€without€properÐ D!” Ðjurisdiction€in€failing€to€grant€the€use€for€permission€on€appeal€whichÐ 0"€  Ðwas€sought€by€the€Petitioner.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€11.à8 ` àThe€Court€granted€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€filed€by€theÐ ô$D # ÐPetitioner,€and€reversed€the€decision€of€the€Wilson€County€Board€ofÐ à%0!$ ÐZoning€Appeals.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€12.à8 ` àThe€Court€directed€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€appeals€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðissue€and€grant€the€application€for€use€on€appeal,€and€to€grant€theÐ )à$( Ðrequired€building€permit€for€the€communications€tower.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOur€review€of€the€chancery€courtððs€grant€of€Petitionerððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€isÐ ° Ðòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€presenting€only€a€question€of€law.€Ð œì ÐòòRobinson€v.€Ô_ÔOmerÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€€Upon€this€review€of€the€record,€we€find€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€chancery€court€correctly€granted€Petitionerððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€finding€there€wasÐ tÄ Ðno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€the€Boardððs€lack€of€jurisdiction€in€this€matter.€€The€Board€ofÐ `° ÐZoning€Appeals€is€merely€an€administrative€body€which€derives€its€authority€from€section€13„7„109Ð L œ Ðof€the€Code.€€Thus,€the€Board€may€only€determine€whether€or€not€Petitioner€has€complied€with€allÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplicable€zoning€laws.€€As€the€Board€made€no€finding€that€Petitioner€failed€to€comply€with€the€A„1Ð $ t Ðzoning€laws€and€Cell€Tower€Cite€Location€rules,€they€have€no€authority€to€deny€Petitioner€permissionÐ  ` Ðto€construct€the€tower.Ð ü L  ÐÌIII.à0  àAPPLICABLE€LAW.ÐÔ$ (#(# ÐÌà  àThe€power€of€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€over€cell€tower€location€is€not€governed€byÐ ¬ü  Ðsections€13„24„301€to€„303€of€the€Code.€€These€sections€govern€the€power€of€a€legislative€body,€andÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ô€Board€is€not€a€legislative€body.€€Instead,€the€Board€is€bound€to€the€administrative€functionÐ „Ô  Ðbestowed€on€it€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€13„7„109€(1999).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àA€zoning€ordinance€is€a€proper€and€valid€exercise€of€a€county€or€municipalityððs€police€powerÐ H˜ Ðso€long€as€it€is€reasonably€related€to€the€protection€of€the€public€safety,€health,€morals,€or€welfare.€Ð 4„ ÐòòÔ_ÔShatzÔ_Ô€v.€Phillipsóó,€225€Tenn.€519,€471€S.W.2d€944,€947„48€(1971).€€However,€the€ability€to€use€theseÐ  p Ðpolice€powers€to€legislate,€and€thus€enact€or€amend€zoning€laws,€is€not€vested€in€the€Board€of€ZoningÐ  \ ÐAppeals€but€in€a€county€or€municipalityððs€legislative€body.€€We€must€differentiate€between€aÐ øH Ðlegislative€and€an€adjudicative€act.€€ð ðAn€example€of€an€administrative€or€adjudicative€proceeding€inÐ ä4 Ða€zoning€matter€is€found€where€a€òòboardóó€is€established€to€hear€and€decide€appeals€relative€to€theÐ Ð  Ðapplication€of€zoning€provisions€to€individual€circumstances.€€But€òòboards€of€this€nature€are€notÐ ¼  Ðlegislative€bodiesóó.ðð€€òòFisher€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€584€S.W.2d€659,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).Ð ¨ø Ð(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€all€the€Board€can€do€is€determine€whether€the€use€requested€complies€withÐ ”ä Ðall€current€zoning€laws€of€Wilson€County.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€power€of€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€is€further€explained€in€the€case€of€òòFather€RyanÐ X ¨ ÐHigh€School,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Oak€Hillóó,€774€S.W.2d€148€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€In€òòFather€Ryanóó,€theÐ D!” ÐBoard€of€Zoning€Appeals€heard€a€request€for€a€conditional€use€permit€to€construct€a€private€highÐ 0"€  Ðschool.€€This€request€was€denied€based€on€the€consideration€of€the€health,€safety€and€morals€of€theÐ #l! Ðcommunity€and€lack€of€sufficient€parking€for€the€facility.€€This€zoning€ordinance€in€òòFather€RyanÐ $X" Ðóóprovided€€that€the€Board€could€ð ð[Ô_Ôp]ermitÔ_Ô€a€private€school€to€be€established€or€operated€upon€aÐ ô$D # Ðdetermination€that€the€establishment€or€operation€of€such€school€is€consistent€with€the€generalÐ à%0!$ Ðwelfare,€safety,€morals€and€health€of€the€community,€after€taking€into€consideration€the€letter€and€theÐ Ì&"% Ðspirit€of€this€ordinance.ðð€€òòFather€Ryanóó,€774€S.W.2d€at€187.Ô#†¼F»XXqú7#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼FÔ€€òòóóÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThis€Court€held€that€the€Board€in€òòFather€Ryanóó€exceeded€the€jurisdiction€conferred€on€it€byÐ )à$( Ðthe€Code.€€Further,€the€city€legislative€body€had€set€out€specific€requirements€in€their€zoningÐ |*Ì%) Ðregulations€for€conditional€uses€such€as€the€one€requested€by€Father€Ryan€High€School.€€Boards€€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðzoning€appeals€were€established€pursuant€to€Code€sections€13„7„109€and€13„7„207€to€hear€appealsÐ ° Ðregarding€these€special€exceptions,€or€conditional€use€permits,€under€the€applicable€zoningÐ œì Ðordinance.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ð ðThe€legislature,€in€providing€for€the€establishment€of€a€board€of€zoning€appeals,€didÐ ˆØ Ðnot€confer€this€authority€upon€such€boards€under€the€enabling€legislation,€the€exercise€of€whichÐ tÄ Ðwould€be€legislative,€as€opposed€to€the€quasi„judicial€authority€vested€in€the€boards€of€zoningÐ `° Ðappeals.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€188„189.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€òòFather€Ryanóó€court€found€that€the€jurisdiction€and€power€of€a€board€of€zoning€appealsÐ $ t Ðwas€specifically€set€out€in€section€13„7„207€of€the€Code;€however,€Wilson€Countyððs€authority€willÐ  ` Ðbe€derived€from€its€virtual€twin,€section€13„7„109:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à13„7„109.€€Powers€of€board€of€appeals.€„€The€board€of€appeals€has€theÐ Ô$  Ðpower€to:ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ*°,X„Xz h•X°œX*Óà  àà8 ` àà ¸ à(1)à z àHear€and€decide€appeals€where€it€is€alleged€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðappellant€that€there€is€error€in€any€order,€requirement,€permit,Ð „Ô  Ðdecision,€or€refusal€made€by€the€county€building€commissioner€or€anyÐ pÀ Ðother€administrative€official€in€the€carrying€out€or€enforcement€of€anyÐ \¬ Ðordinance€enacted€pursuant€to€this€part;€ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ à(2)à z àHear€and€decide,€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€ofÐ  p Ðany€such€ordinance,€requests€for€special€exceptions€or€forÐ  \ Ðinterpretation€of€the€map€or€for€decisions€upon€other€special€questionsÐ øH Ðupon€which€such€board€is€authorized€by€any€such€ordinance€to€pass;Ð ä4 ÐandÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ à(3)à z àWhere,€by€reason€of€exceptional€narrowness,Ð ¨ø Ðshallowness€or€shape€of€a€specific€piece€of€property€at€the€time€of€theÐ ”ä Ðenactment€of€the€regulation€or€by€reason€of€exceptional€topographicÐ €Ð Ðconditions€or€other€extraordinary€and€exceptional€situation€orÐ l¼ Ðcondition€of€such€piece€of€property,€the€strict€application€of€anyÐ X ¨ Ðregulation€enacted€under€such€section€would€result€in€peculiar€andÐ D!” Ðexceptional€practical€difficulties€to€or€exception€or€undue€hardshipÐ 0"€  Ðupon€the€owner€of€such€property,€authorize,€upon€an€appeal€relatingÐ #l! Ðto€the€property,€a€variance€from€such€strict€application€so€as€to€relieveÐ $X" Ðsuch€difficulties€or€hardship;€provided,€such€relief€may€be€grantedÐ ô$D # Ðâ âwithout€substantial€detriment€to€the€public€good€and€withoutÐ à%0!$ Ðsubstantially€impairing€the€intent€and€purpose€of€the€zone€plan€andÐ ° Ðzoning€ordinance.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„109€(1999).Ð tÄ ÐÌThus,€when€the€legislature€provided€for€the€establishment€of€a€board€of€zoning€appeals,€this€enablingÐ L œ Ðlegislation€did€not€provide€for€the€exercise€of€legislative€power€but€restricted€that€power€to€quasi„Ð 8 ˆ Ðjudicial€or€administrative.€€òòFather€óóRyan,€774€S.W.2dòòóó€at€188„89.€€This€Court€went€on€in€òòFather€RyanóóÐ $ t Ðto€state:Ð  ` Ðà8  àà ` àIt€is€settled€law€that€a€board€of€zoning€appealsðð€power€or€jurisdiction€is€limitedÐ ü L  Ðin€scope€to€that€expressly€conferred€by€statute.€€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà ` àA€municipality€may€not€confer€powers€upon€the€board€not€granted€by€theÐ À  Ðenabling€statute€and€such€grant€is€òòultra€virus€óóand€void.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð ˜è  Ðà8  àà ` àIn€the€instant€case,€the€boardððs€action€in€denying€the€permit€was€based€uponÐ „Ô  Ðconsiderations€beyond€its€statutory€power€and€was€therefore€illegal.€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòFather€Ryan,€óó774€S.W.2d€at€190„91€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMerritt€v.€Wilson€County€Bd.€ofÐ H˜ ÐZoning€Appealsóó,€656€S.W.2d€846€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòÔ_ÔHarrellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€County€Quarterly€Ct.óó,Ð 4„ Ð526€S.W.2d€505€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975);€òòBrooks€v.€Fisheróó,€705€S.W.2d€135€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€Ð  p ÐSuch€is€the€situation€before€us€today.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€cases€relied€on€in€òòFather€Ryanóó€is€òòMerritt€v.€Wilson€County€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals.óó€Ð ä4 ÐAs€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals,€in€òòMerrittóó,€denied€a€ð ðuseÐ Ð  Ðpermissible€on€appeal.ðð€€Also,€as€in€this€case,€the€Board€in€òòMerrittóó€made€no€finding€that€the€projectÐ ¼  Ðfailed€to€comply€with€any€zoning€ordinance€requirements.€€Instead€they€denied€the€building€permitÐ ¨ø Ðð ðdue€to€lack€of€proper€Ô_ÔingresÔ_Ô/egress€to€accommodate€a€250„unit€apartment€complex.ðð€€òòMerrittóó,€656Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€at€853.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€this€Court€stated€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€has€neither€the€power€toÐ X ¨ Ðzone€nor€to€amend€the€zoning€ordinance.€€That€power€is€in€the€county€legislative€body.€€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ððððÐ D!” Ð13„7„101€and€13„7„105.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€854.€€This€Court€further€stated€that€ð ðthe€Wilson€County€ZoningÐ 0"€  ÐOrdinance€sets€forth€comprehensive€requirements€for€a€group€housing€developmentðð€and€theÐ #l! Ðð ðproperty€met€all€requirements.€.€.€.€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€Board€did€not€deny€the€application€because€of€failure€toÐ $X" Ðmeet€the€requirements€of€the€ordinance.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThose€opposed€to€the€housing€development€made€an€argument€similar€to€the€one€in€this€case,Ð Ì&"% Ðð ðthat€even€though€the€Ô_ÔMerrittsÔ_Ôðð€property€may€have€met€all€the€specific€criteria€for€a€Group€HousingÐ ¸'#& ÐDevelopment,€the€Board€can€deny€an€application€under€the€purpose€clause€of€the€Wilson€CountyÐ ¤(ô#' ÐZoning€Ordinance€because€the€general€welfare€could€be€effected€if€the€permit€were€granted.ðð€€òòId.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âóóThe€Court€specifically€disagreed€with€this€Ô_Ôargument,Ô_Ô€even€where€an€action€of€the€PlanningÐ |*Ì%) ÐCommission€or€the€quarterly€court€was€involved€rather€than€a€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals.€€Said€theÐ ° Ðcourt€quoting€from€òòÔ_ÔHarrellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHamblinÔ_Ô€Co.€Quarterly€Courtóó:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€obvious€that€the€Planning€Commission€and€the€Quarterly€Court€deniedÐ tÄ Ðthe€permit€to€the€Petitioners€because€of€the€objection€of€adjacent€property€owners,Ð `° Ðwhich€they€were€without€authority€to€do.€€101€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€Zoning,€ðð€224.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAlthough€these€adjacent€property€owners€may€be€justifiably€concerned€as€toÐ $ t Ðthe€adverse€effect€that€may€be€had€on€the€value€of€their€property,€this€does€not€permitÐ  ` Ðan€òòadministrative€agencyóó€to€deny€an€adjoining€property€owner€the€right€to€use€hisÐ ü L  Ðproperty€for€lawful€purposes€and€not€in€violation€of€zoning€or€restrictions.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àð ðThe€grant€or€refusal€of€a€permit€is€to€a€certain€extent€within€theÐ À  Ðsound€discretion€of€the€board€or€official€authorized€to€use€it,€but€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscretion€must€be€exercised€reasonably,€and€if€an€applicant€meets€allÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€requirements€of€the€zoning€regulations€and€there€is€no€validÐ „Ô  Ðground€for€denial€of€the€application,€the€permit€should€be€issued.ðð€Ð pÀ Ð101€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô,€òòsupraóó.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Law€of€Zoning€and€Planning€Chapter€55,€Section€3,€says:Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àð ðSo€long€as€the€application€is€in€order€and€the€proposed€use€of€theÐ  \ Ðproperty€complies€with€applicable€municipal€ordinances€or,€whereÐ øH Ðalthough€not€complying,€the€premises€has€a€vested€non„conformingÐ ä4 Ðstatus,€the€applicant€is€entitled€to€a€permit,€and€it€is€the€duty€of€theÐ Ð  Ðadministrative€officer€to€issue€him€one.ððм ` x` x ÐÌòòMerrittóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€855€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔHarrellÔ_Ôóó,€526€S.W.2d€at€508€„€509).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€most€recent€case€decided€by€this€Court€challenging€a€decision€of€a€board€of€zoningÐ l¼ Ðappeals€also€concerns€a€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appealsðð€denial€of€a€ð ðuse€permissible€onÐ X ¨ Ðappeal.ðð€€After€reviewing€Wilson€County€zoning€ordinances€and€the€applicable€law,€this€Court€foundÐ D!” Ðthat€the€use€requested€was€clearly€specified€as€a€ð ðuse€permissible€on€appealðð€and€that€ð ðonce€theÐ 0"€  Ðapplicant€goes€through€the€process€and€the€requested€use€satisfies€all€other€pertinent€regulations€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€local€zoning€ordinance,€it€must€be€granted.ðð€€òòWilson€County€Youth€Emergency€Shelter€v.€WilsonÐ $X" ÐCountyóó,€13€S.W.3d€338,€342€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€This€Court€found€no€evidence€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðapplication€violated€any€part€of€the€Wilson€County€A„1€zoning€regulation€and€stated€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]hileÔ_ÔÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€[board]€has€authority€to€act€under€the€zoning€regulations,€it€must€act€ððwithin€existing€standardsÐ Ì&"% Ðand€guidelines.ðð€€It€clearly€does€not€have€unbridled€authority€to€deny€an€otherwise€fully„compliantÐ ¸'#& Ðrequest€simply€because€other€citizens€are€opposed€to€the€use.ðð€€òòWilson€Countyóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€343.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€proper€method€of€review€of€a€decision€made€by€a€board€of€zoning€appeals€is€through€aÐ ° Ðâ âcommon€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCallenÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2d€633€(Tenn.€1990).€€UnderÐ œì Ðthis€writ,€the€reviewing€court€must€examine€two€things,€(1)€was€the€action€of€the€tribunal€illegal€orÐ ˆØ Ðin€excess€of€its€jurisdiction,€if€not,€(2)€was€there€material€evidence€to€support€the€decision.€òòóóòòSeeÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔMcCallenÔ_Ôóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€638„640;€òòMassey€v.€Shelby€County€Retirement€Bd.óó,€813€S.W.2d€462€atÐ `° Ð464„465€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòÔ_ÔHemontolorÔ_Ô€v.€Wilson€County€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appealsóó,€883€S.W.2dÐ L œ Ð613,€616„618€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.€Metro€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appealsóó,€924€S.W.2d€900,Ð 8 ˆ Ð904„905€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àð ðIn€determining€the€question€of€whether€new€evidence€may€be€introduced€before€theÐ ü L  Ðreviewing€court€in€a€proceeding€under€the€common„law€writ,€a€distinction€must€be€drawn€betweenÐ è 8  Ðthe€different€types€of€legal€questions€which€may€be€presented.ðð€€òòMasseyóó,€813€S.W.2d€at€465.€€First,Ð Ô$  Ðin€determining€whether€a€lower€tribunal€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€in€some€manner€acted€illegally,Ð À  Ðarbitrarily€or€capriciously,€additional€evidence€may€be€received€by€the€reviewing€court.€€This€isÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðbecause€the€reviewing€court€determines€such€issues€as€an€original€matter.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àHowever€in€dealing€with€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€uphold€the€decision€of€a€board,Ð pÀ Ðno€additional€evidence€may€be€introduced.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€situation€is€different,€however,€where€the€legal€issue€before€the€court€isÐ 4„ Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€an€administrative€fact„finding.€€On€thisÐ  p Ðissue€no€new€evidence€is€admissible.€€The€reviewing€court€is€confined€to€the€recordÐ  \ Ðas€it€existed€before€the€lower€fact„finding€tribunal.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€reviewing€court€is€limited€to€asking€whether€there€was€in€the€recordÐ Ð  Ðbefore€the€fact„finding€body€òòanyóó€evidence€of€a€material€or€substantial€nature€fromÐ ¼  Ðwhich€that€body€òòcouldóó€have,€òòby€reasoning€from€that€evidenceóó,€arrived€at€theÐ ¨ø Ðconclusion€of€fact€which€is€being€reviewed.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€(emphasis€in€original).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€reiterated€these€two€areas€of€review€under€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€inÐ D!” ÐòòÔ_ÔHemontolorÔ_Ô€v.€Wilson€County€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appealsóó.€€ð ðOur€scope€of€review,€and€that€of€the€trialÐ 0"€  Ðcourt,€under€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorari,€is€to€determine€whether€the€board€exceeded€itsÐ #l! Ðjurisdiction,€followed€unlawful€procedures,€acted€arbitrarily€or€capriciously€or€acted€without€materialÐ $X" Ðevidence€to€support€its€decision.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔHemontolorÔ_Ôóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€616.€€ð ðThe€question€of€whether€or€notÐ ô$D # Ðthere€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€Boardððs€decision€is€one€of€law,€to€be€decided€by€theÐ à%0!$ Ðreviewing€court€upon€an€examination€of€the€evidence€introduced€before€the€Board.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€617.€Ð Ì&"% Ðð ðCourts€have€limited€the€introduction€of€additional€evidence€to€the€question€of€whether€the€BoardÐ ¸'#& Ðexceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,€arbitrarily€or€capriciously.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€618.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àOne€other€case€pertinent€to€review€of€the€issues€before€the€Court€is€òòSimmons€v.€City€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐLexingtonóó,€11€S.W.3d€136€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€òòSimmonsóó,€land€owners€filed€an€injunctionÐ h+¸&* Ðwhich€the€chancellor€treated€as€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€board€of€zoning€appeals.€€The€chancellorÐ ° Ðentered€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€land€owners€on€that€writ€of€certiorari.€€Although€the€CourtÐ œì Ðof€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€it€did€not€find€thatÐ ˆØ Ða€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€an€improper€procedure€for€a€case€being€heard€on€a€common€lawÐ tÄ Ðwrit€of€certiorari€from€a€board€of€zoning€appeals.Ð `° ÐÌIV.à0  àISSUES€PRESENTED€FOR€REVIEWÐ8 ˆ(#(# ÐÌà  à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€deciding€the€matter€on€summary€judgment?Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€courtððs€determination€to€decide€this€matter€on€summary€judgment€was€not€incorrect,€norÐ è 8  Ðwas€the€courtððs€decision€to€allow€in€additional€evidence€along€with€the€summary€judgment€motion.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€chancellorððs€ruling€was€that€the€board€òòlacked€jurisdictionóó€to€exclude€the€communications€towerÐ À  Ðð ðbased€on€safety€of€the€airport.ðð€€As€new€evidence€may€be€introduced€on€appeal€regarding€the€issueÐ ¬ü  Ðof€òòwhether€the€board€exceeded€its€jurisdictionóó,€òòMasseyóó,€813€S.W.2d€at€465,€it€was€appropriate€forÐ ˜è  Ðthe€court€to€allow€the€introduction€of€new€evidence€on€this€issue.€€In€addition,€summary€judgmentÐ „Ô  Ðis€appropriate€on€the€issues€of€the€illegality€of€the€Boardððs€actions€and€the€jurisdiction€of€the€BoardÐ pÀ Ðsince€ð ðthe€reviewing€court€determines€such€issues€as€an€original€matter.€€On€such€an€issue€theÐ \¬ Ðreviewing€court€weighs€the€evidence€before€it€and€determines€by€preponderance€of€the€proof€whetherÐ H˜ Ðthe€lower€tribunal€acted€illegally€or€not.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAs€previously€seen€in€òòSimmonsóó,€this€court€has€not€determined€that€summary€judgment€is€anÐ  \ Ðimproper€procedure€unavailable€on€appeal€through€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€Thus,€we€hold€today€that€inÐ øH Ðsituations€where€the€court€has€original€jurisdiction€over€a€matter,€and€is€not€bound€to€review€only€theÐ ä4 Ðrecord€below,€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€The€lower€courtððs€decision€to€proceed€on€theÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment€motion€is€upheld.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€chancery€court€level,€and€upon€review€of€thisÐ ”ä Ðevidence,€it€is€obvious€that€much€of€the€evidence€did€not€relate€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€boardÐ €Ð Ðacted€illegally€or€outside€its€jurisdiction.€€The€majority€of€this€evidence€was€merely€additionalÐ l¼ Ðevidence€to€show€that€the€Boardððs€decision€was€incorrect.€€Although€much€of€this€evidence€shouldÐ X ¨ Ðnot€have€been€allowed€in,€its€introduction€was€harmless€error,€as€the€chancellor€never€considered€theÐ D!” Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€presented€to€the€Board.€€The€chancellor€decided€this€case€on€the€BoardððsÐ 0"€  Ðlack€of€jurisdiction,€thus€any€evidence€designed€to€bolster€or€discredit€the€evidence€presented€to€theÐ #l! ÐBoard€was€not€relied€on€by€the€chancellor€in€making€his€determination.Ð $X" ÐÌà  à2.€€Did€the€court€err€in€finding€that€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€actedÐ à%0!$ Ðwithout€jurisdiction€in€denying€the€application€for€use€on€appeal?Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àBased€on€case€law€dealing€with€the€powers€of€a€board€of€zoning€appeals,€we€find€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchancellor€was€correct€in€determining€that€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€had€noÐ )à$( Ðjurisdiction€to€deny€the€permit€application€for€construction€of€a€communications€tower.€€ThisÐ |*Ì%) Ðapplication€was€not€denied€based€on€failure€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€the€zoning€ordinance.€Ð h+¸&* ÐThe€application€was€denied€because€of€ð ðsafety€to€the€airportðð.€€Those€zoning€ordinances€in€WilsonÐ ° ÐCounty€applicable€to€tower€location€contained€no€provisions€for€airport€safety€other€than€the€FAAÐ œì Ðapproval€and€the€horizontal€distance€requirements.€€Therefore,€as€the€Boardððs€jurisdiction€is€limitedÐ ˆØ Ðto€determinations€expressly€conferred€by€statute,€òòFather€Ryan€High€Schoolóó,€747€S.W.2d€at€184,€theÐ tÄ Ðboard€has€no€authority€to€require€additional€conditions€not€set€forth€in€the€zoning€ordinancesÐ `° Ðapplicable€to€this€case.€€Thus,€the€board€ð ðexceeded€its€own€statutory€authorityðð€and€was€withoutÐ L œ Ðjurisdiction€to€decide€the€matter€based€on€airport€safety.€€òòMasseyóó,€813€S.W.2d€462;€òòMerrittóó,€656Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€846;€òòWilson€County€Youth€Emergency€Shelteróó,€13€S.W.3d€338.Ð $ t ÐÌà  à3.€€Did€the€court€err€in€reversing€the€decision€of€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Appeals€andÐ ü L  Ðordering€the€board€to€grant€the€application€for€use€on€appeal?Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Board€acted€outside€its€jurisdiction€when€it€denied€the€permit€based€on€ð ðairport€safetyððÐ À  Ðand€also€gave€no€other€reason€for€this€denial.€€Since,€after€the€board€heard€all€the€evidence€presentedÐ ¬ü  Ðin€this€case,€it€found€no€violation€of€any€zoning€ordinance€which€would€give€the€board€valid€groundsÐ ˜è  Ðto€deny€the€permit,€it€must€now€grant€Petitioner€this€permit.€€ð ðHaving€shown€that€the€use€isÐ „Ô  Ðallowable,€there€is€no€burden€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€use€would€not€damage€the€health,Ð pÀ Ðsafety€and€morals€of€the€community.ðð€€òòMerrittóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€854.€€ð ðIf€an€applicant€meets€all€of€theÐ \¬ Ðrequirements€of€the€zoning€regulations,€and€there€is€no€valid€ground€for€denial€of€the€application,€theÐ H˜ Ðpermit€should€be€issued.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€855.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€chancery€court€that€Petitioners€met€all€requirements€of€the€Wilson€CountyÐ  \ ÐZoning€Ordinance€and€that€no€evidence€was€presented€which€showed€this€communication€towerÐ øH Ðwould€violate€any€part€or€provision€of€the€A„1€zoning€regulation€or€Wilson€Countyððs€Cell€TowerÐ ä4 ÐLocation€regulations.€€We,€thus,€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€directing€the€board€to€approveÐ Ð  ÐPetitionerððs€request€and€allow€construction€of€the€communications€tower.€€òòSee€Wilson€County€YouthÐ ¼  ÐEmergency€Shelteróó,€13€S.W.3d€at€343.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  à4.€€Do€the€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€13„24„301,€et€seq.€excludeÐ €Ð Ðthe€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€from€having€any€jurisdiction€over€the€regulation€ofÐ l¼ Ðlocation€of€facilities€used€to€provide€telephone€or€telegraph€services€to€the€public?Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAs€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€is€merely€an€administrative€body,€it€has€no€power€toÐ 0"€  Ðð ðregulateðð€under€section€13„24„301,€or€any€other€section,€of€the€Code.€€This€statute€specificallyÐ #l! Ðapplies€to€ð ðlegislative€bodies,ðð€of€which€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€is€not€one.€€Under€TennesseeÐ $X" ÐCode€Annotated€section€13„7„109€and€subsequent€interpreting€case€law,€the€board€of€zoning€appealsÐ ô$D # Ðis€a€quasi„judicial€tribunal.€€òòSee€Father€Ryan€High€Schoolóó,€774€S.W.2d€at€188.€€The€board€has€neitherÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€power€to€zone€nor€to€amend€a€zoning€ordinance.€€òòMerrittóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€854.€€Ô_ÔThus,Ô_Ô€we€affirmÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€chancellorððs€determination€that€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€lacks€jurisdictionÐ ¸'#& Ðto€regulate€local€facilities€that€provide€telephone€or€telegraph€service€to€the€public.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  à5.€€Was€there€material€evidence€to€support€the€decision€of€the€Wilson€County€Board€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐZoning€Appeals€in€this€matter?Ð h+¸&* ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àAs€the€chancellor€did€not€need€to€decide€the€appeal€on€the€basis€of€material€evidence,€we€findÐ ° Ðthis€question€moot.€€In€its€analysis,€the€chancery€court€determined€that€the€only€basis€given€by€theÐ œì ÐBoard€for€denying€the€use€permit€was€one€that€exceeded€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Board;€thus,€the€issueÐ ˆØ Ðof€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€front€of€the€Board€was€never€reached.€€Regardless€of€the€sufficiencyÐ tÄ Ðof€the€evidence€regarding€airport€safety,€the€Board€had€no€jurisdiction€to€make€the€decision€thatÐ `° Ðairport€safety€should€determine€Petitionerððs€right€to€an€otherwise€legal€use.€€As€we€affirm€theÐ L œ Ðchancellorððs€determination€to€decide€this€case€on€the€Boardððs€òòóólack€of€jurisdiction,€we€find€itÐ 8 ˆ Ðunnecessary€to€address€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€before€the€Board.€€Ð $ t ÐÌV.à0  àPETITIONERððS€REQUEST€FOR€ATTORNEY€FEESÐü L (#(# ÐÌà  àPetitioner€has€made€a€request€for€attorney€fees€under€Tennesseeððs€Equal€Access€to€JusticeÐ Ô$  ÐAct,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€29„37„101€to€„106.€€However,€Petitioner€failed€to€introduceÐ À  Ðany€evidence€that€he€met€the€requirements€of€a€ð ðsmall€businessðð€laid€out€in€section€29„37„103(2).Ð ¬ü  ÐThus,€the€trial€courtððs€determination€not€to€award€litigation€costs€and€attorney€fees€in€this€matter€isÐ ˜è  Ðaffirmed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌVI.à0  àCONCLUSION€€Ð\¬(#(# ÐÌà  àThe€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€is€an€administrative€or€quasi„judicial€bodyÐ 4„ Ðempowered€only€under€section€13„7„109€of€the€Code.€€Thus,€the€Board€can€only€make€judicialÐ  p Ðdeterminations€of€whether€or€not€an€applicant€complied€with€existing€zoning€laws.€€In€this€case,€theÐ  \ ÐBoard€refused€Applicantððs€building€permit€for€a€reason€which€was€not€included€in€any€WilsonÐ øH ÐCounty€Zoning€law,€to€wit€safety€of€a€private€airport.€€Thus,€the€Board€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€inÐ ä4 Ðthis€matter.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€the€issue€of€the€Boardððs€jurisdiction€is€an€original€matter€heard€by€the€chancellor,€we€agreeÐ ¨ø Ðwith€the€chancellorððs€decision€to€allow€in€additional€evidence€and€dispose€of€the€matter€on€summaryÐ ”ä Ðjudgment.€€Any€evidence€not€related€to€the€Boardððs€jurisdiction€should€not€have€been€allowed€in,€butÐ €Ð Ðthe€error€was€harmless.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Board€must€now€grant€Petitionerððs€request€to€build€the€communications€tower.€€We€agreeÐ D!” Ðwith€the€chancellor€that€the€Board€failed€to€find€the€tower€to€be€in€violation€of€any€Wilson€CountyÐ 0"€  ÐZoning€laws,€so€the€use€must€be€granted.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFinally,€Petitioner€failed€to€present€any€evidence€that€he€was€a€ð ðsmall€businessðð€as€definedÐ ô$D # Ðby€Tennesseeððs€Equal€Access€to€Justice€Act.€€The€request€for€attorney€fees€and€litigation€costs€were,Ð à%0!$ Ðtherefore,€properly€denied.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€decision€of€the€chancery€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà z àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà z àà h àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE