WPCP lY2dSB6d53콾 l4/4eza<#aP HIQ}sCtKڐ0<#]Ov.ѢL!mUa&x!^;%lQX0ɐ뱬1n2ȠL㖷*'{AZ7 8#Mc_/>|!iD dU,SJ}ZX8nō" nXLC^UNzgL1crZeO.SÉ*#{2t݀X>KTÃb6{ŧ7~]XQ';cVW;6sd̔ &; uaԔϱ )$4[(䐌[˚A>"V^{mF B?lv7$^>W%啮 Vrz&2x WհXBb %\^ b 0nU"NwD4H\ zk m #   { AN 0DELbEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 0MMMM B88 0U D3 D-, 0KYY AS 0 0Da Ak~1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 reweighLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      2    _See _Hutcherson_Ԁv.LauderdaleCountyBd.ofZoningAppeals ,121S.W.3d372(Tenn.Ct.App.2003);   WilsonCountyYouthEmergencyShelter,Inc.v.WilsonCounty ,13S.W.3d338(Tenn.Ct.App.1999); _Hemontolor_ v v.WilsonCountyBd.ofZoningAppeals ,883S.W.2d613(Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Mullinsv.CityofKnoxville ,665 < S.W.2d393(Tenn.Ct.App.1983); Sextonv.AndersonCounty ,587S.W.2d663(Tenn.Ct.App.1979); _Domincovitch_ R v.WilsonCountyBd.ofZoningAppeals ,No.M199902334_COA_ԄR3CV,2000WL1657843(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,  filedNovember6,2000). B R$      1    _In Weaverv.KnoxCountyBd.ofZoningAppeals ,122S.W.3d781,785(Tenn.Ct.App.2003),weheldthat   suchfindings,whilehelpful,arenotessentialtojudicialreviewunderthematerialevidencestandardand theabsence v ofexpressfindingsoffactdoesnotrender[thelocaladministrativebodys]decisionillegal,arbitraryorcapricious. :  Id. - -(|G2$ !.8Ndd8         0   d(|3?$ !.8Ndd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$ !.8Ndd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ndd8     _  N8 XXdd8  @ WNINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#NW #Ԉ &   June8,2004Session L X XN #NXX #GIBRALTARTAFTHIGHWAYLIMITEDPARTNERSHIPv. J THETOWNOFWALDEN,etal.X XN   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  ^ @@No.021030HowellN.Peoples,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302523_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDNOVEMBER30,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      GibraltarTaftHighwayLimitedPartnership,throughitsgeneralpartner,The_Raines_ԀGroup( the  plaintiff),filedanapplicationwiththeTownofWaldensBoardofAldermen( theBoard), x seekingapermittobuildatownhouseprojectonpropertylocatedwithinWalden.TheBoarddenied d theplaintiffsapplication.Theplaintiffthenfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariinthetrialcourt. P Followingahearing,thatcourtupheldthedecisionoftheBoard,findingthattheBoardhadnotacted < illegally,arbitrarily,orcapriciouslyinrejectingtheapplication.Theplaintiffappeals,contending (x thatthetrialcourterredinitsdetermination.Weaffirm. d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt < Affirmed;CaseRemanded  (   #NX #X X.NCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._,  andWilliamH._Inman_,_Sr.J._,joined.  AllenL._McCallie_,Christie_Kizer_ԀGrot,andWilliamL.Brown,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forthe t  appellant,GibraltarTaftHighwayLimitedPartnership,throughitsgeneralpartner,The_Raines_ `!  Group,Inc. L"! RonaldD.Wells,StacyLynnArcher,andMichaelJ.Stewart,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forthe $$t# appellees,theTownofWaldenanditsBoardofAldermen. %` $  OPINION #NXX  #X XN '$#' #NXX  #X XN    I. )$) L   #NXX ! #X XNOnSeptember16,1996,theplaintiffacquireda15acretractofproperty( theproperty)in +&+ anunincorporatedpartofHamiltonCounty.Twoweekslater,theTownofWaldenannexedthe p,', propertyandchangedthezoningofthepropertytoanR1residentialdistrict.Suchadesignation \-(-V _preventedanycommercialdevelopmentandrestrictedthedevelopmentofresidentialpropertytoone  residencepertwoacrelot.However,Waldenszoningordinanceallowedforplannedunit  developments( PUDs),suchastownhouses,tobebuiltinR1districts,providedthePUD  applicationwasfirstapprovedbytheChattanooga/HamiltonCountyRegionalPlanningAgency( the t Agency),andthereafterapprovedbytheBoard.OncetheBoardapprovedtheapplication,the ` applicantwouldbeissuedaSpecialConditionsPermit,whichallowedittoproceedwith L  construction.#NXX  #X XN 8    Inlate1998,theplaintiffsubmittedtotheAgencyanapplicationtobuildaPUDtownhouse  ` projectontheproperty.TheAgencyapprovedthePUD.Theplaintiffthensubmitteditsapplication  L  totheBoard.Afterholdingpublicmeetingstoconsidertheapplication,theBoardrejectedthe  8  plaintiffsapplication.Theplaintiffdidnotseekfurtherreviewofthisdecision. $    Approximatelythreeandahalfyearslater,inJuly,2002,theplaintiffsubmittedarevised   PUDapplicationtotheAgency.TheAgencyagainapprovedtheapplication,subjecttotheplaintiff   meetingcertainconditions.OnSeptember10,2002,theBoardheldapublichearingforthepurpose   ofdiscussingtheplaintiffsnewapplication.Over100peopleattendedthehearing.TheBoard p heardfromnumerouswitnesses,bothinsupportofandinoppositiontotheapplication.Atthe \ conclusionofthehearing,theBoard,byavoteoftwoagainstandoneabstaining,deniedthe H plaintiffsapplication. 4     TheplaintiffthenfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariwiththetrialcourtonOctober9,2002.  \ ThetrialcourtfoundnoabuseofdiscretionintheBoardsdecisionandfurtherfoundthattheBoard H didnotactillegally,arbitrarily,orcapriciously.Fromthisjudgment,theplaintiffappeals. 4     II.     In McCallenv.CityofMemphis ,786S.W.2d633(Tenn.1990),theSupremeCourtstated  thefollowingregardingthestandardofreviewinacasesuchastheonenowbeforeus:  8  8`   Reviewunderthecommonlawwrit[ofcertiorari]islimitedto X  whether theinferiorboardortribunal(1)hasexceededits D! jurisdiction,or(2)hasactedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently.0" ` x` x   *** $X" 8  8`   Thecourtsmustdeterminewhethertheactionofthe[local %0!$ administrativebody]intheexerciseofitsadministrative,judicialor &"% quasijudicialfunctionwasillegalorinexcessofjurisdiction.'#&` x` x   *** )$(  z |*%) 8  8`   The fairlydebatable,rationalbasis,asappliedtolegislativeacts,   andthe illegal,arbitraryandcapriciousstandardrelativeto  administrativeactsareessentiallythesame.Ineitherinstance,the  courtsprimaryresolveistorefrainfromsubstitutingitsjudgment t forthatofthelocalgovernmentalbody.Anactionwillbeinvalidated ` onlyifitconstitutesanabuseofdiscretion.If anypossiblereason L  existsjustifyingtheaction,itwillbeupheld.Bothlegislativeand 8  administrativedecisionsarepresumedtobevalidandaheavyburden $ t ofproofrestsupontheshouldersofthepartywhochallengesthe  ` action. L ` x` x  Id. at638,640,641(emphasisadded)(citationsomitted).Underthisstandard,wearenotpermitted $  toreweightheevidence,orscrutinizetheintrinsiccorrectnessofthedecision. Laffertyv.Cityof   Winchester ,46S.W.2d752,759(Tenn.Ct.App.2000). Adecisionbyalocalzoningboardwill   beconsideredarbitraryonlywhenthereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportit. Id. (citation   omitted).      @ III. `     Theplaintiffraisesthreeissuesforourreview,whichwethinkcanbesuccinctlystatedas 8 asingleissue:DidthetrialcourterrinfindingthattheBoardactedwithinitsauthoritywhenit $t deniedtheplaintiffsapplicationforaPUD?Theplaintiffassertsthatthereisnomaterialevidence ` tosupporttheBoardsdecision.ThisleadsittoconcludethattheBoardactedillegally,arbitrarily, L andcapriciously.See McCallen ,786S.W.2dat641. 8   TheWaldenzoningordinancesetsforththefollowingstandardsforthegrantofaPUD  SpecialConditionsPermit:  8  8`   Flexibilityinthearrangementofresidentialusesmaybepermittedby  the[Board]asspecialexceptionsinanyR1RESIDENTIAL p DISTRICT,providedthattheminimumsizeofanytractofland \  soughttobeusedforthe[PUD]shallbeten(10)acresandthata H! desirableenvironmentthroughtheuseofgooddesignproceduresis 4"  assured,allowingflexibilityinindividualyardrequirementsto  #p! provideformultifamilydwellingunits,townhouses,andtwofamily  $\" units,exceptthatsuchuseorusesshallrequireaSpecialConditional $H # PermitunderthetermsofARTICLEVIoftheseRegulations.%4!$` x` x (Capitalizationinoriginal).ArticleVI,section107.3ofthezoningordinanceauthorizestheBoard ' #& toconsiderthefollowinginmakingadeterminationonaPUDapplication: (#' 8  8`   Thepropertyadjacenttotheareaincludedintheplanwillnotbe *%) adverselyeffected.l+&*` x` x Ї8  8`   Theplanisconsistentwiththeintentandpurposeofthese  Regulationstopromotepublichealth,safety,morals,andgeneral  welfare.` x` x   8 @ 8@`   *** ` ^+8  8`   Thereisaneedforsuchdevelopmentintheproposedlocation.8 ` x` x 8  8`   Thereisreasonableassurancethatdevelopmentwillproceed  ` accordingtothespiritandletteroftheapprovedplans. L ` x` x (Letteringinoriginalomitted). $    Initsmemorandumopinionandorder,thetrialcourt,afternotingthattheBoardhadnot   madefindingsoffact, #  1      #NXX (#X XNԀdeterminedthat thereareconcernsaffectinghealth,safety,andenvironment   forthecitizensofWaldenthattheBoardcouldconcludearenotsatisfactorilyresolved,addressed,   orassuredbytheproposedplan.Baseduponthecourtsreviewofthetranscriptofthehearing p beforetheBoard,thecourtconcludedthattheseconcernsincludedthefollowing: \ 8  8`   [V]ariouscitizensmadestatementsabouttheimpactofthePUDon 4 theirsurroundingproperty,thepotentialhazardofleakinggaslines,  p thelossofthenaturalbeautyoftheareacausedbytheremovalof  \ treesandothervegetation,thelackofspecificdetailsaboutthe H operationofproposeddetentionpondstohandlesurfacewaterrunoff 4 andtheimpactonsurroundingproperties,theabsenceofinformation   aboutthedesign,sizeandlocationofaproposedpumpingstationfor   sewagefromtheplan,andtheincreasedtraffichazardresultingfrom  thelocationoftheentrancetothePUD.` x` x Statingthat McCallen ,786S.W.2dat641,instructsthat administrativedecisionsarepresumedto l bevalidandaheavyburdenofproofrestsupontheshouldersofthepartywhochallengesthe X  action,  thetrialcourtheldthattheplaintifffailed tomeettheburdenofshowinganabuseof D! discretionbytheBoardorthatitsactionswereillegal,arbitraryorcapricious. 0"    OurreviewoftherecordintheinstantcasepersuadesusthattheBoarddidnotexceedits $X" authorityoractillegally,arbitrarily,orcapriciouslywhenitdeniedtheplaintiffsapplication. $D # Despitetheplaintiffsstrenuousassertionstothecontrary,wefindthattheplaintiffsplanfor %0!$ handlingsewageleftmanyquestionsunanswered.Theplaintiffcontendsthat,initsapplication &"% presentedtotheAgency,itlaidoutaplantouseanonsitesandfilteredsepticsystem,butthat  subsequenttotheAgencysapprovalandpriortotheplaintiffspresentationtotheBoard,itreceived  permissionfromtheHamiltonCountyWastewaterTreatmentAuthoritytoconnectaprivate7,700  footlongsewerlinetothesewersysteminthetownofSignalMountain.Itistheplaintiffsposition t thatitpresentedbothoftheseoptionstotheBoard,allowingtheBoardtodecidewhichsewage ` systemwaspreferable.TheBoardclaims,however,thattheplaintiff,initspresentationtothe L  Board,showedthatitclearlyintendedtoforegothesandfiltrationsysteminfavorofthepublic 8  sewageline.Furthermore,theBoardassertsthattheplaintiffdidnothaveadequateinformation $ t aboutthedesign,sizeorlocationofthesewagepumpingstationthatwouldbeneededunderthe  ` publicsewagelineplan.Inshort,thetestimonyregardingthetypeofsewagesystemtobeusedand  L  themannerinwhichitwouldbeimplementedisambiguousatbest.Assuchambiguitycould  8  certainlyraiseconcernsoverthepublichealth,safetyandwelfareofthecitizensofthetown,the $  Boardcouldrationallybaseitsdecisiontodenytheplaintiffsapplicationonthisbasis.     Inaddition,wefindthattheissueoftrafficwasnotsufficientlyaddressedbytheplaintiff.   WhiletheplaintiffpresentedtestimonythattheentrancetothePUDwaswellwithinthesight   distancerequiredbytheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation,severalcitizensexpressedtheir p concernsabouttheentrance,includingthedangerspresentedbyfog,slickroads,andablindcurve \ neartheentrance.AspointedoutbytheBoard,thesecitizenswerefamiliarwiththeroadoffof H whichtheentrancewouldbelocatedandtheweatherconditionsthatwouldadverselyaffectdriving 4 inthatarea.Thiscourthaspreviouslystatedthat weknowofnoreasonwhytheviewsofthe  p concernedresidentswhoseexperiencesarerelevant...cannotbeconsideredconcomitantlywith  \ thoseofexperts. ConeOilCo.v.WilliamsonCountyReglPlanningCommn ,No.01A019604 H CH00154,1996WL465222,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filedAugust16,1996).Inconsidering 4 theviewsofthesecitizens,theBoardcouldhavereasonablyconcludedthatthesetrafficconcerns   wouldnegativelyimpactthepublichealth,safetyandwelfare,andcouldhavedeniedtheplaintiffs   applicationonthisbasis.    HavingfoundsufficientcriteriaonwhichtheBoardcouldhavebaseditsdenial,wedonot  finditnecessarytoreviewtheotherconcernsraisedbythetrialcourt.Under McCallen ,the l existenceof anypossiblereasonjustifyingthelocaladministrativebodysactionnecessitatesthat X  thedecisionbeupheld. Id. at641.Clearly,thereismorethanone possiblereasonjustifyingthe D! Boardsactionintheinstantcase,andassuch,weareconstrainedtoupholdthataction. 0"    Bywayofasubissue,theplaintiffcontendsthat,becauseitsapplicationsatisfiedallofthe $X" requirementssetforthinthezoningordinanceandbecauseitmetalloftheadditionalconditions $D # stipulatedbytheAgency,theBoardlackedauthoritytodenytheplaintiffsapplication.Insupport %0!$ ofthiscontention,#NXX 9.#X XNtheplaintiffcitesnumerouscasesinwhichthiscourtoverturnedthedecisionof &"% alocaladministrativebodysdenialofapermitbecausewedeterminedthatthelocalbodysdecision '#&  wasarbitraryandthatitfailedtoactwithintheexistingstandardsandguidelinessetforthinthe (#' applicableordinance. #  2      ׀However,theplaintiffsrelianceonthesecasesismisplaced.Intheinstant   case,theBoardwasactingwithinitsestablishedstandardsandguidelineswhenitdeniedthe  plaintiffsapplication.Thezoningordinanceunderwhichtheplaintiffwasproceedingclearly  allowedtheBoardtoconsiderissuesofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,amongotherthings.As t wehavepreviouslyfound,theBoardhadmorethanonepossiblereasononwhichtobaseitsdenial, ` andeachofthosereasonscouldhavebeenpremiseduponconcernoverthepublichealth,safetyand L  welfareofWaldenanditscitizens. 8    Accordingly,wefindthatthereisampleevidencetosupportthedecisionoftheBoardinthis  ` case,see Lafferty ,46S.W.2dat759,#NXX /G#X XNandweholdthattheactionoftheBoardindenyingthe  L  plaintiffsapplicationwasnotillegal,arbitrary,orcapricious.See McCallen ,786S.W.2dat641.  8  Accordingly,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecisiontoupholdthedecisionoftheBoard. $      IV.   kN  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforthecollectionofcosts   assessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,GibraltarTaft p Highway#NXX L#X XNLimitedPartnership,throughitsgeneralpartner,TheRainesGroup,Inc. \    `     h     _______________________________ H    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE