WPCX -6ZW#B)"U flz٭:Raa|(BUi[ג YB,xu9>8LoJNɮ.o}@R05C~~~:z0-ٌNFԸWb/R_e4Aʀy{)UBF %  n 04K 4 0 w@ N #   m ) U>1 o U:  U: B D3<<< 0Doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo AO 0D D/  B;<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|xf <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$  h&  ShelbyMcMURRAY P DQ PR VS T eU V UW DX Ӏd HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLU <\( 9Z &Courier Regular XgUXXXXXgU   Ad FILED/   June25,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr./AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular XgUXXXXXgU   Ad FILED/   June24,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr./AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd T!   T T T T _`   7XXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ќXXXXW V V V V V V W X X d X r*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rX d d r*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rd X X @LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLEHARRY_GILLMAN_Ԁandwife@*@@*)  _LOUDON_ԀCOUNTY x _ԢSAUNDRA_Ԁ_ԢGILLMAN_,Individually)  03A019706CH00239 @ andd/b/aTENNESSEEWASTE@*) h  MOVERS ` @*) 0  @*)  PlaintiffsAppellants@*)   `  @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.FRANKV.WILLIAMS,III,   Ѐ@*)  CHANCELLOR   @*)_LOUDON_ԀCOUNTYCOMMISSIONand@*) p _LOUDON_ԀCOUNTYBOARDOFZONING@*) 8 APPEALS@*)  T T   T T  ` T T  T T @*T T )  T T AFFIRMEDINPART;VACATEDT T  h   DefendantsAppellees@*T T )  T T INPART;andREMANDEDT T  0 RONALDJ._ԢZUKER_ԀandKIMBERLYR.TAYLOROFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTSHARVEYL._ԢSPROUL_ԀOF_ԢLENOIR_ԀCITYFORAPPELLEES@$OPINION H&%    `     h      p   _ԢGoddard_,_ԢP.J._Ԁ 0* *   T T  ` Plaintiffs,T T HarryandSandra_Gillman_,ownersofTennesseeWasteMovers,appealajudgmentoftheChanceryCourtof_Loudon_ԀCountyupholdingboththevalidityof_Loudon_ԀCountyzoningresolutionsdealingwithwastedisposalfacilitiesandthe_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsrefusaltograntapermittoaddadditionallandtoapresentlyfunctioningdemolitionlandfill.  9p0>    ` The_Gillman_sownandoperateademolitionlandfillin _Loudon_ԀCounty.ThecurrentlandfillwaslicensedbytheStateofTennessee,DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation,DivisionofSolidWasteManagementin1993.OnoraboutJuly15,1995,the_Gillman_senteredintoacontractforthepurchaseofapproximatelyelevenacresadjacenttotheircurrentlandfill,withclosingsubjecttothepropertybeingpermittedbyalllocalandstateauthoritiestooperateasademolitionlandfill.TheGillmansplannedtousethisadditionalpropertyasanexpansionoftheircurrentoperation.The_Gillmans_Ԁintendedentrytobegrantedbythesamegatehouseandintendedtheadditionallandtobemanagedaspartoftheoriginallandfill.OnMay9,1996,the_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsdeniedthe_Gillman_sapermittousethiselevenacresasademolitionlandfill.Inrefusingtograntthepermit,theBoardreliedupon_Loudon_ԀCountyZoningResolutionSection4.190whichwasadoptedin1995.Section4.190readsinpart:#XXXX#XXXX `"   ` Section4.190WasteDisposalFacilitiesLocation % $ andDesignStandards ` A.Purpose.Thesestandardsareestablishedin 'x' ordertomaintaintheintegrityofrural_Loudon_ԀCountyandpreservethehealth,safetyandgeneralwelfareofthecommunityresultingfromtheimproperlocationanddesignoflandfilloperations.Thesestandardsapplytothelocation,bufferinganddesignrestrictionsforanywasteoperation,including,butnotlimitedtodemolition,sanitary,orstructuralfillwasteoperations.Nositeshallbeapprovedbythe_Loudon_CountyBoardofZoningAppealsasaspecialexceptionunlessthesiteanddesigncomplieswiththeminimumprovisionsoutlinedinthisSectionaswellasthoseregulationsofanystateagencyempoweredtoadoptprovisionsforthedesignandlocationofwastefacilityoperations.Where_discrepancies_Ԁexistbetweentheregulatingentities,thestrongerprovisionshallapply. `  B.LocationandSiteDesignStandards x  5,9 Nositeshallbeapprovedforawastedisposalfacilitysiteunlesssaidsitecomplieswiththefollowingminimumstandards,aswellasanystandardtheBoardofZoningAppealsdeterminesisnecessaryinordertomaintainthecharacterofthecommunityandhealth,safetyandwelfareoftheinhabitantsofthearea: :81?  ` _ ` 1. Sitemusthavedirectaccesstoanarterial (  or_collector_Ԁroadhavingaminimumpavementwidthof24'. ` 2.Nositeshallbeapprovedunlesspropertiessurroundingthesiteareservedbypublicutilitywater. ` 3.Entrancesintothe_landfill_Ԁoperationshallbepavedandcurbedfromtheconnectionoftheroadtotherequiredentrancegate. ` 4.Suitableleftturnlanes,_Ԣaccel_Ԁand_Ԣdecel_lanesshallbeprovidedattheentranceasdeterminedbytheboardofzoningappeals. ` 5.Anundisturbedbufferisrequiredalongtheperimeterofthesite.A300'buffershallbemaintainedonthe_front_Ԁofthesiteanda200'bufferalongtheremaining_side_Ԁandrearlotlines.Thepurposeofthebufferareaistovisuallyscreentheviewofthe_operationfrom_Ԁadjoiningpropertiesandpublicroads.Ifexistingvegetativecoverisnotsufficienttoadequatelyscreentheoperationthensuitable_nursery_Ԁstockshallberequired. ` 6.Theperimeterofthesiteshallbefencedwhichshallnotbepermittedinthebufferarea. ` 7.Agatehouseorweighstationshallnotbevisibletotheroadorotherproperties.Anonsitetirecleaningsystemshallbeinstalledandusedduringthehoursofoperationinordertoinsurethatdirtor  :04 otheraccumulationofdebrisisnotdepositedonthepublicroadfromexitingvehicles. ` 8.Nowastedisposalsiteshallbeapprovedifthesiteislocatedwithin5miles(airmiles)ofanexistingoperatingwaste_disposal_Ԁsite.Thisrequirementshallnotpreventtheexpansionofanexistingapprovedlandfilloperation. ` 9.NowastedisposalsiteshallbeapprovedunderthisResolutionunlesssuchsiteisdevotedexclusivelyinthedisposalofwastegeneratedin_Loudon_ԀCounty....   ` AsaresultoftheBoardofZoningAppealsdenialofthelandfillpermit,onJune5,1996,the_Gillman_sfiledtwosuitsagainstthe_Loudon_ԀCountyCommissionandthe_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppeals.Inthefirstsuit,ChanceryCourtdocketnumber9239,the_Gillmansrequested_ԀthattheChanceryCourtdeclareSection4.190ofthe_Loudon_ԀCountyZoningResolutioninvalidforfailureofthe_Loudon_ԀCountyCommissiontocomplywiththenoticerequirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated137105.Furthermore,the_Gillman_ssoughtSection4.190bedeclaredinvalidasitcontainsunconstitutionalprovisions.BothpartiesfiledMotionsforSummaryJudgment.OnFebruary6,1997,theChanceryCourtof_Loudon_ԀCountyheardargumentonbothmotions.   ` TheTrialCourtheldthatthenoticeofthepublichearingwassufficienttomeettherequirementslaidoutin_T.C.A._Ԁ137105.AstoSection4.190,B.1throughB.8,theTrialCourtfoundthatarationalbasisexistsforthoseprovisionsand,therefore,theprovisionswerenot 09/3 unconstitutional.TheTrialCourtheldthatSection4.190,B.9violatedtheCommerceClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,buttheTrialCourtfurtherheldthatthisunconstitutionalsubsectionwasnotsoessentialorinterwovenwiththeothersubsectionsastorendertheentireprovisionunconstitutionalaswell.Asaresultofthesefindings,theTrialCourtdismissedthiscomplaintagainstthe_Loudon_ԀCountyCommission__andthe_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppeals.   ` Inthesecondsuit,ChanceryCourtDocketNumber9240,the_Gillmans_ԀpetitionedtheCourtbyaWritofCertiorariseekingreversalofthedecisionofthe_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsdenyingthe_Gillman_sT T requestT T tousetheadjoiningpropertyasanexpansionoftheirdemolitionlandfill.Upontheinitialhearing,theTrialCourtremandedthecauseT T toT T the_Loudon_BoardofZoningAppealsforthepurposeofreconsideringandspecifyingtheprovisionswithwhichthe_Gillman_sapplicationfailstocomply.TheCourtfurtherorderedthatuponsuchreconsideration,eitherpartycouldmoveforafurther_hearing_.   ` On_November_Ԁ18,1997,the_Gillman_sreappearedbeforethe_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsandrequestedseveralvariancesaspartoftheirpermitrequest.TheBoardofZoningAppealsrefusedtograntavariancereducingthebufferzonesestablishedinSection4.190B.5oftheZoningResolution.Furthermore,theBoardofZoningAppealsfoundthatthe_Gillman_s  :04 requestsoughttheestablishmentofanewlandfillinsteadoftheexpansionofapresentlyoperatinglandfill.TheBoardofZoningAppealsalsorefusedtowaivethefivemiledistancelimitationfornewlandfillssetoutinZoningProvision4.190B.8.TheBoardofZoningAppealsgrantedvariancestoallothersubsectionsofZoningResolution4.190,butdeniedtherequestedspecialexceptionanddeniedthepermittoestablishanewlandfillT T becausetheproposedlandfillviolatedsubsectionsfiveandeightofSectionT T 4.190BT T .T T    ` The_Gillman_s_then_ԀfiledaMotionforFurtherHearinginordertoseekareversaloftheBoardofZoningAppealsdenialofthevariancespertainingtothesetwosubsectionsoftheZoning_Revolution_.OnApril20,1998,theChanceryCourtof_Loudon_Countyheardargumentsregardingthedenialofthevariances.TheChanceryCourtaffirmedtheBoardofZoningAppealsastoitsinterpretationthattheGillmanspermitrequest__constitutedanapplicationforanewlandfillinsteadoftheexpansionofanexistinglandfill.Findingthisissuetobedeterminative,theTrialCourtrenderedjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendantsanddismissedthe_Gillman_sPetitionforCertiorari.   ` The_Gillmans_Ԁappealthedismissalofthefirstsuit,ChanceryCourtT T docketT T T T numberT T 9239,assuchdismissalpertainstothenoticeofthepublichearingandtotheconstitutionalityofZoningResolutionsubsections4.190B.5andB.8.The_Gillman_sdonotappealtheconstitutionalityoftheothersubsectionsof  :04 ZoningResolution4.190T T becauseT T theBoardofZoningAppealshassincegrantedT T them__T T avariancetothosesubsectionsuponremandbyOrderoftheChanceryCourtinthesecondsuit,ChanceryCourtT T docketT T T T numberT T 9240.The_Gillman_salsoappealthe_Chancery_CourtsdismissaloftheirPetitionforCertiorariincausenumber9240.    `     ` The_Gillmans_Ԁpresentthefollowingissuesforreview:  1.T T WhetherT T the15daynoticerequirementoftheTennesseeCodeAnnotatedT T T T 137105(b)(1)appliestothepublishingofacompletesummaryoftheproposedamendmentsuchthatfailuretosotimelypublishsaidsummaryresultsintheinvalidityoftheadoptedamendment.  2.T T WhetherT T azoningresolutionrequiringanundisturbedbufferzoneof300feetonthefrontofasiteand200feetalongthesideandrearlotlinesisarbitrary,capricious,unreasonableandunconstitutional.  3.T T WhetherT T thedenialofavariancerequestwasimproperwhennomaterialevidencewaspresentedtosupportthedecisionbytheBoardofZoningAppeals.  4.T T WhetherT T azoningresolutionprohibitingapprovalofanylandfillifthesiteislocatedwithin_five_Ԁmilesofanexistinglandfillisconstitutional.  :04 Ї  5.T T WhetherT T expandingthebordersofanalreadyexistinglandfilltoaddlandappurtenanttheretoconstitutesanexpansionofanexistinglandfill.  6.T T WhetherT T thedenialofcertainvariancerequestsbytheBoardofZoningAppealswasimproperwhensaiddenialeffectivelydeprivesthelandownerofthebeneficialuseofhisland.   ` Summaryjudgmentisrenderedinfavorofapartyuponashowing"thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw."_ԢTenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁ56.03.Nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestodecisionsgrantingsummaryjudgmentsbecausetheyinvolveonlyquestionsoflaw.Thus,onappeal,wemustmakeafreshdeterminationconcerningwhetherornottherequirementsof_Rule_56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurehavebeenmet.Hillv.CityofChattanooga,533S.W.2d311,312(_Tenn.Ct.U  `'  U App_.1975).Indoingso,wemustconsiderthepleadingsandtheevidentiarymaterialsinalightmostfavorabletothemotion'sopponent,andwemustdrawallreasonableinferencesintheopponent'sfavor.Blockerv.RegionalMedicalCenter,722S.W.2d .%( 660(Tenn.1987);_ԢPoore_Ԁv.MagnavoxCo.,666S.W.2d48,49 0`'* (Tenn.1984);Jonesv.HomeIndemnityIns.Co.,651S.W.2d213, 2@), 214(Tenn.1983).   ` Inthecaseathand,bothpartiessoughtsummaryjudgmentbasedT T uponT T thefactspresented.Neitherpartyraises  :04 issueastoanymaterialfact;therefore,wewillresolvethisT T appealT T uponthelegalissuesalone.T T #X+XXX+#T T   NoticeRequirement  0D   ` The_Gillman_scontendthatZoningResolution5195whichamendedArticle4ofthezoningresolutionsof_Loudon_CountytoaddT T SectionT T 4.190pertainingtowastedisposalfacilitiesisinvalidT T becauseT T the_Loudon_ԀCountyCommissionfailedtopublishasummaryoftheresolutionatleast15dayspriortothepublichearingontheresolution.The_Gillman_sbasethisargumentof137105ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedentitled AmendmentofOrdinanceswhichstates:(a)Thecountylegislativebodymayfromtimetotimeamendthenumber,shape,boundary,areaoranyregulationoforwithinanydistrictordistrictsoranyotherprovisionofanyzoningordinance;butanysuchamendmentshallnotbemadeorbecomeeffectiveunlessthesamebefirstsubmittedforapproval,disapprovalorsuggestionstotheregionalplanningcommissionoftheregioninwhichtheterritorycoveredbytheordinanceislocated,and,ifsuchregionalplanningcommissiondisapproveswithinthirty(30)daysaftersuchsubmission,suchamendmentshallrequirethefavorablevoteofamajorityoftheentiremembershipofthecountylegislativebody. ` (b)(1)Exceptasprovidedinsubdivision(b)(2),beforefinallyadoptinganysuchamendment,thecounty /p&) legislativebodyshallholdapublichearingthereon,atleastfifteen(15)days'noticeofthetimeandplaceofwhichshallbegivenbyatleastone(1)publicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthecounty.Acompletesummaryofsuchamendmentshallbepublishedatleastonceintheofficialnewspaperofthecountyorinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthecounty.Thesummaryshallincludeastatementthat P7-1 acompletecopyoftheamendmentisavailableandwheresuchcopymaybeobtained.Ifthezoningordinance_Ԣrezones_Ԁproperty,adescriptionofthepropertythatis  :04 _Ԣrezoned_Ԁshallbeincludedinthesummary.(Emphasisadded)7G)GGT T    ` TheT T recordshowsthattheNoticeofPublicHearingforConsiderationwaspublishedintheMarch16,1995editionoftheNewsT T Herald.Thereafter,onT T March23,1995,asummaryofthe  amendmenttothezoningordinancewaspublished.TheCountyCommissionheldthepublichearingregardingthisamendmentonApril3,T T 1995.X+XXX+T T       ` Whencalledupontoconstruestatutes,courtspresumethatthegeneralassemblyselectedthewordsdeliberately,Tenn.   ManufacturedHousing_ԢAss'n_.v.Metropolitan_ԢGov't._,798S.W.2d  254,257(_Tenn.Ct.App_.1990),andthateachwordisanecessarypartofthestatute.Tenn.Growers,Inc.v.King,682S.W.2d !` 203,205(Tenn.1984).Statutorywordsdrawtheirmeaningfromthecontextoftheentirestatute,KnoxCountyexrel._ԢKessel_Ԁv. %  _Lenoir_ԀCity,Tenn.,837S.W.2d382,387(Tenn.1992),andfromthe `'  statute'spurposesandobjectives._ԢDorrier_Ԁv.Dark,537S.W.2d @)" 888,892(Tenn.1976);Pearsonv.Hardy,853S.W.2d497,500  +!$ (_Tenn.Ct.App_.1992).Forthisreason,inordertoascertainlegislativeintent,astatuteshouldbereadasawhole,notinT T parts,T T T T JamesT T CablePartnersv.Jamestown,818S.W.2d338,342 0`'* (_Tenn.Ct.App_.1991),andastatute'smeaningistobedeterminednotfromspecialwordsinasinglesentenceorsection,butfromtheacttakenasawhole,viewingthelegislationinlightofitsgeneralpurpose._ԢLoftin_Ԁv._ԢLangsdon_,813S.W.2d475,478 @8.2 (_Tenn.Ct.App_.1991).#X+XXX+MO#X+XXX+  :04 Ї   ` AfterthoroughlyreviewingT.C.A.137105,weholdthatthe_Loudon_ԀCountyCommissionmetnoticerequirementssetforthfortheamendmentofanordinance.T.C.A.137105clearlyrequirestheinitialnoticeofpublichearingtobepublishedfifteendayspriortothepublicmeeting.Thisinitialnoticeguaranteescitizensthetimetoadequatelyprepareforthepublichearings.Thestatuteisclearinrequiringonlythatthesummaryoftheamendmentbepublishedoncebeforethepublichearing.WemustpresumethatthegeneralassemblyselectedthewordsinT.C.A.137105deliberatelyinordertoconveyitsintentandpurpose;therefore,weaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgmentastotheissueofadequatenoticeofthepublichearing.#X+XXX+~V#X+XXX+    ConstitutionalityoftheBufferZoneRequirements #@ >Z   ` The_Gillman_scontendthattheTrialCourterredinfindingthebufferrequirementsofT T SectionT T 4.190BT T T T .5constitutional.The_Gillman_sclaimthatthisrequirementisarbitrary,capricious,unreasonableand,thereby,unconstitutional.T T Asalreadynoted,SectionT T 4.190ofthe_Loudon_CountyZoningResolutionstates: ` 5.Anundisturbedbufferisrequiredalongtheperimeterofthesite.A300'buffershallbemaintainedonthefrontofthesiteanda200'bufferalongtheremainingsideandrearlotlines.Thepurposeofthebufferareaistovisuallyscreentheviewoftheoperationfromadjoiningpropertiesandpublicroads.Ifexistingvegetativecoverisnotsufficienttoadequatelyscreentheoperationthensuitable_nursery_Ԁstockshallberequired.#X+XXX+Z#X+XXX+  :04 Ї#X+XXX+^#X+XXX+\\\#X+XXX+0_#X+XXX+   ` Locallegislativebodieshavebroaddiscretionin @  enactingoramendingzoningordinances.Whenthevalidityofazoningordinanceisfairlydebatable,thecourtsmaynotsubstitutetheirjudgmentforthatofthelocallegislativebody.Azoningordinanceshouldbefoundvalidunlessitis"clearlyarbitrary,capricious,orunreasonable,havingnosubstantialrelationshiptothepublichealth,safety,orwelfare,orplainlycontrarytothezoninglaws."_ԢMcCallen_Ԁv.CityofMemphis,786 ` S.W.2d633,640(Tenn.1990).Becausethe"rationalbasis"testisthemostdeferentialformofjudicialscrutiny,areviewingcourtshouldupholdachallengedzoningordinanceifthereisanypossiblereasonthatcanbeconceivedtojustifyit._Fallin_Ԁv.  KnoxCountyBd.of_Commr_'s,656S.W.2d338,343-44(Tenn.1983). !` #X+XXX+_#X+XXX+   ` After_thorough_Ԁreviewoftherecord,wefindthatthebufferrequirementsestablishedbySection4.190B.5areunconstitutional.Whileweagreewith_Loudon_ԀCountythatthe100footbufferzoneestablishedbythegeneralassemblyoftheStateofTennesseeismerelyaminimum,wefindnorationalbasisfortheestablishmentofa300footbufferinthefrontor200footbuffersonthesidesandinthebackofthelandfill.Whiletheprovisiondoesstatethatthepurposeofthebufferis tovisuallyscreentheviewoftheoperationfromadjoiningpropertiesandpublicroads,nodirectrelationshipexistsbetweenthesegoalsandthesizablebuffersmandated.WhileweT T believeT T thatcountiesT T canT T implementstandardsmorestringentthan  :04 thoseestablishedthroughtheintensescientificstudyoftheStateofTennessee,suchstricterprovisionsmustrelateinademonstrablyrationalwaytothegoalsofthecounty.   ` Therecordcontainsnobasisbywhichtheseverebuffersenactedpromotethehealth,safety,andwelfareofthe_Loudon_ԀCounty.Therecordcontainsnoimpactordesignconsiderationswhichsubstantiatethequantitativestandardsofthisprovision;conversely,suchseverebuffersreducean11acrepropertyto1acreofusableland(SeeT T Appendix).T T Wecannotcountenancesuchsevereinfringementsonpropertywithoutanyrationalbasis.Wefindthisprovisionisclearlyarbitraryandunreasonableasitbearsnodirectrelationshiptothegoalsstatedintheprovisions;therefore,T T we,asalreadystated,T T holdthatT T T T 4.190BT T T T .5isunconstitutional.   ` Basedupontheabovefindings,issuethreeregardingthegrantofavariancetotheaboveprovisionismoot.__Ԁ  @)"     FiveMileSeparationRequirement -#&      ` TheT T GillmansT T alsocontendthattheTrialCourterredinfindingtheprohibitionestablishedbyT T 4.190BT T .8ofapprovalofanylandfillwithinfivemilesofanexistinglandfillconstitutional.TheT T GillmansT T claimthatthefivemileseparationrequirementisalsoarbitrary,capriciousandunreasonable;therefore,theT T GillmansT T believethatitalsoshouldbeheld  :04 unconstitutional.T T LoudonT T CountyZoningResolutionT T 4.190BT T .8states: ` 8.Nowastedisposalsiteshallbeapprovedifthesiteislocatedwithin5miles(airmiles)ofanexistingoperatingwaste_disposal_Ԁsite.Thisrequirementshallnotpreventtheexpansionofanexistingapprovedlandfilloperation.no#X+XXX+c#oX+XXX+   ` Beforedealingwiththeconstitutionalityofthisprovision,wefinditprudenttoaddresswhethertheT T TrialT T T T CourtT T erredinfailingtofindthatthiswasanexpansionofanexistinglandfill,therebyfallingundertheexpansionexceptioncontainedinsection4.190B.8.The_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsfoundthatthe_Gillman_spermit_request_Ԁwasnotforthepurposeofexpandinganexistinglandfill.Instead,theBoardfoundthatthepermitrequestwasforanewlandfillT T anddeniedT T avariance.Insodoing,theBoardofZoningAppealsadoptedthemeaningofthephrase expansionofanexistingapprovedlandfillsuggestedbyT T PatrickT T C.Phillips,_Loudon_ԀCountysprofessionalplanner,inhisNovember10,1997memorandum.Mr._Phillips_Ԁsuggested expansionofanexistingapprovedlandfilloperationbedefinedas:Expansionshallbeinterpretedastoallowthecontinuanceofoperationsofawastedisposalfacilitywithinthepropertyboundariesofthesiteownedandinusebysuchaffectedbusiness.Expansionshallnotbeconstruedtoallowthecontinuanceofoperationsthroughtheacquisitionofadditionalland.)uu7uThisdefinitionisnotfoundintheapplicablezoningregulationsfor_Loudon_ԀCounty. 09/3    ` TheBoardofZoningAppealsadoptedthisdefinitionof expansiontherebyT T excludingT T the_Gillman_sfromtheexceptiondraftedintotheprovision.TheTrialCourtupheldthisdecisionstatinginitsopinion:Ӏ The_Loudon_ԀCountyBoardofZoningAppealsfoundthePlaintiffsapplicationtobefortheopeningofanewlandfillratherthantheexpansionofanexistinglandfill.TheCourtfindsthisinterpretationtobeentirelyreasonableandconsistentwiththefactsandtheprovisionsofthelaw.TheexpansionrequestedbyPlaintiffsisforlandnotownedbythem,norwasitcontractedfororapprovedby_Loudon_ԀCountywhentheoriginalpermitwasissued.ThisisalateralexpansionofanexistinglandfillontonewpropertytobeacquiredbyPlaintiffsiftheyareabletogaintherequisiteapproval.Thefactthatthetwotractsarecontiguousdoesnotcontrol.Therighttoexpandanexistinglandfillcanbereasonablyinterpreted,astheBoardofZoningAppealshasdone,nottopermittheexpansionofthelandfillthroughtheacquisitionof  additionalland.(Emphasisadded)wxixxӀ#X+XXX+p#X+XXX+    p    ` #X+XXX+|#X+XXX+Thecourtsconstruezoningordinancesusingthesame "P principlesusedtoconstruestatutes.CityofKnoxvillev. $0 Brown,195Tenn.501,507,260S.W.2d264,267(1953);Anderson p& Countyv.RemoteLandfillServs.,Inc.,833S.W.2d903,908-09 P(! (Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Thus,whenthelanguageofazoningordinanceisclear,thecourtswillenforcetheordinanceaswritten.If,however,thelanguageisT T unclear, theCourtshouldcallupontheirarsenalofinterpretationalrules,presumptionsandaidstoarriveattheordinancesmeaningandintent.WhittemoreT T v.BrentwoodPlanningComm'n,835S.W.2d11,15 30*- (Tenn.Ct.App.1992).  P7-1    ` Accordingly,thecourtsconstruezoningordinancesasa T T whole,TennesseeT T ManufacturedHous.Ass'nv.MetropolitanGov't, @  798S.W.2d254,257(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),andgivetheirwordstheirnaturalandordinarymeaningunlesstheordinancerequiresotherwise.Bolesv.CityofChattanooga,892S.W.2d416,420  (Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Aproperconstructionfurtherstheordinance'sgeneralpurposes,Jagendorfv.CityofMemphis,520 @  S.W.2d333,335(Tenn.1974);Stateexrel.Smithv.Cityof   Nashville,51Tenn.App.23,29,364S.W.2d106,109(1962),but ` atthesametimepreventstheordinancefrombeingappliedtocircumstancesbeyonditsscope.RedAcresImp.Club,Inc.v.   ТBurkhalter,193Tenn.79,84-85,241S.W.2d921,923(1951).     ` Thecourtsmustalsoconstruezoningordinanceswithsomedeferencetowardapropertyownersrighttothefreeuseoftheirproperty.Stateexrel.Morrisv.CityofNashville,207 %  Tenn.672,680,343S.W.2d847,850(1961);Bolesv.Cityof `'  Chattanooga,892S.W.2d416,420(T T Tenn.Ct.AppT T .1994)#X+XXX+I}#X+XXX+;Stateex @)" rel.SCAChem.Servs.,Inc.v.Sanidas,681S.W.2d557,562  +!$ (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Accordingly,thecourtsshouldresolveambiguitiesinazoningordinanceinfavorofapropertyownersunrestricteduseoftheirproperty.Stateexrel.Wrightv.City 0`'* ofOakHill,204Tenn.353,356,321S.W.2d557,559(1959). 2@), #X+XXX+#X+XXX+   ` Relyingonthenaturalandordinarymeaningoftheprovision,andinterpretinganyambiguityinfavoroftheownersunrestricteduseoftheproperty,wemustdisagreewiththe  :04 Chancellor.Thenaturalinterpretationof expansiondoesnotprovidedifferentiationbetweenexpansionintoformerlyownedandnewlyascertainedproperty.Suchforcedconstructionofzoningordinancesallowszoningboardsunlimiteddiscretiontograntordenypermitsatwillbychangingandaddingtothebasicinterpretationsofeachprovision.Changes,suchaschangingthedefinitionofexpansion,caneasilyoccurthroughtheproperlegislativecourse.Fortheabovereason,weholdthatthe_Gillman_spermitrequestwasfortheexpansionofanexistinglandfilloperation,therebyfallingundertheexceptionofprovision4.190B.8.l     ` Basedoftheabovefinding,T T itisunnecessaryT T toaddresstheconstitutionalityofthefivemileseparationrequirementcontainedinT T 4.190BT T .8andwefindissuesixregardingthegrantofavariancetotheaboveprovisionmoot.#X+XXX+#X+XXX+   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrial @)" Courtisaffirmedinpart,vacatedinpart,andthecauseremandedT T forsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareT T T T adjudgedagainsttheDefendants.#X+XXX+ #X+XXX+T T N  0`'* N T T N N P P O O P ̛P T T P ̛P T T Q   Q T T Q  ` Q T T     h   _______________________________   `     h   HoustonM._ԢGoddard_,_ԢP.J._ԀT T R  P7-1 R T T CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.T T S S #X+XXX+#T T