WPC< Q}u?-_l5/_i^!L[e DX*Q%ό7GnZ >vՕHړ]biDM͞F*)6i k>c/tWaۇ6.wh,'[A܆0n9nj+oIU\1\x]fPi{s]. %*!eQW `jlGXN}ŝQHw vݙ4*nRǓ) lL=$ mVs*ֽ/)rgD j 2lEb7+nU`ox@@`dF\N D55zlv]XI&^[]ᰞ۪7j51SPu;yhi Pmr"&2!zkBh6 eNQ5H_(GẊ9_Ec6fHZf k^XPh`P[hA~Yh# %y ^  0 w U#N 4e zy    m = *||NB>D 0UE 0 0 0 0@ 0H 0 0 0H 0 0 0 02 0 0 0' 0 0W! 0! 0 D" 0" 0# 0h$b% 0%%%% 0%%%% 0\& 0& 0'U>(N(}*^,^,~..90 A22f3f3f3/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4 0 5555 B66 06 D5w7 D-7 0K77 AS$8w8 0=9 0D9 A%:%:%:%:%:%::\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0S0 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)0B011C2 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 U 3 Rs$      2  &   _TheHuntersoriginalpetitionalsoincludesclaimsunder42U.S.C.A.1983(West2003);however,these  claimswereremovedfromtheiramendedpetition.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 4 Rs$      3  &   _ThisstatutedefinesthestandardofreviewapplicabletocontestedcasesarisingundertheUniform  _Administrative_ԀProceduresAct.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #   LeAnnunderstory J.R.WilburnHoneycuttMcCallenFallinCommrsHemontolorGovtreweighMcCordTarpleyTraughberWhittemoreCommnHardawaygrandfatheredsituation[scondition[s J.W.McClurkanReddochDeptHutchersonYokleyBlackmonClinardOverstreetShoneyHunnicuttinartfulCelaniDiGiovanniGlankerw]hereLittlesMcLeskyGlankler*,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` - -(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   \  `&Times New Roman  Rs$      4  &   _Wattsv.CivilServ.Bd.forColumbia:& & ,606S.W.2d274,277(Tenn.1980);Casev.ShelbyCountyCivilServ.  MeritBd.,98S.W.3d167,172(Tenn.Ct.App.2002);#& :& #:& & Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningApp.#& :& #:& & ,924S.W.2d t 900,904(Tenn.Ct.App._1996).#& :& # s Rs$      5  &   _McCordv.Nashville,C.&St.L.Ry.,187Tenn.277,294,213S.W.2d196,204(1948);Littlesv.Campbell,  97S.W.3d568,571(Tenn.Ct.App.2002);Hallv.McLesky,83S.W.3d752,757(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).  Rs$      6  &   _421Corp._v._ԀMetropolitan_Govt_,36S.W.3dat474;Whittemore_v._ԀBrentwoodPlanning_Commn_,835S.W.2d  11,15(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). t Rs$      7  &   _TheHunterswouldfarenobetterhadtheyarguedthattheBoardfailedtogiveproperweighttotheevidence  theypresented.Courtsmaynot_reweigh_Ԁtheevidenceincommonlawcertiorariproceedings.421Corp.v._Metropolitan_ t _Govt_,36S.W.3dat474;Hoover,Inc.v._Metropolitan_ԀBd.ofZoningApp.,924S.W.2dat904. / Rs$      8  &   _Amajorityvote(3to1)wouldnothavesufficedbecausetheBoardcannotactwithoutfourvotes.TheBoards  staffexplainedwhenthehearingcommencedthat [_f]ailure_Ԁtoreceivefour(4)concurringvotesinthirty(30)daysof t thepublichearingthentheapplicationshallagainbeadvertisedandsetforpublichearingatthenextregularmeeting.X[Z I&mage <=8C HKKKK Rs$      9  &   _Tenn.CodeAnn.137208andMetro.Code17.040.020(D).  Rs$      1  &   _Originally,boththeHuntersandthelocalbuildingofficialsbelievedthattheprojectrequireda30footbuffer.  Atthe_December_Ԁ2,1999hearing,theBoardsstaffreportedthatonlya20footbufferwouldberequired.(|G2s$ !.8dXXd8         0  &  d(|3$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  Rs$      10  &   _Pecuniaryloss,byitself,doesnotprovidegroundsforgrantingavariance.Reddochv.Smith,214Tenn.at  224,379S.W.2dat646;McClurkanv.BoardofZoningApp.,565S.W.2d495,497(Tenn.Ct.App.1977);Houston t v.Memphis&ShelbyCountyBd.ofAdjustment,488S.W.2d387,389(Tenn.Ct.App.1972). !.8dd8     _TRX3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 AddressTRX3'3'LetterT  8MXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#n#Ԉ &   May8,2003Session L XMX #XXMR#JAMESW.HUNTER,etal.v.METROPOLITANBOARDOFZONING J APPEALS,etal.XMX   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.00328IICarolMcCoy,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200200752_COA_ԄR3CVFiledFebruary17,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesaNashvillelandownerseffortstoavoidconstructingalandscapebufferonhis   industrialproperty.Thelandownersubmittedplanstoconstructanewbuildingthatincludeda  bufferbutthendidnotconstructthebuffer.Afterthelandownerfailedtoobtainauseand x occupancypermit,hesoughtavariancefromthelandscapebufferrequirement.TheBoardofZoning d Appealsdeniedtherequestedvariance,andthelandownerfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritof P certiorariintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyassertingthattheBoarderredbydecliningto < grantthevariance.WehavedeterminedthattheBoarddidnotactarbitrarily,capriciously,or (x illegallyand,therefore,affirmthetrialcourt. d  #XXM#XMXETenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #XM #XMX.WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.  C.LeAnnSmith,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,JamesW.HunterandJamesR.Hunter.  KarlDean,J.BrooksFox,andJohnL.Kennedy,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees, `!  MetropolitanBoardofZoningAppealsandMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson L"! County. 8#"   OPINION #XXM #XMX %` $ #XXMB #  XMX@) I.  &8"&   JamesW.Hunterandhisfamily( Hunters)haveownedatractofpropertyandabuilding ($( onGeorgiaAvenueinNashvillesincethelate1950s.Theyhaveleasedthepropertyovertheyears )$) tovarioustenants,allofwhomhaveuseditforindustrialpurposes.Inearly1999,theHunters *%* lessee,MobileStorageGroup,Inc.,requestedimprovementstothebuilding.However,the +&+ DepartmentofCodesAdministrationoftheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson p,', Countydeclinedtoissueabuildingpermitbecauseofthediscoveryofarailroadeasementunderthe \-(- proposednewbuilding. H.). Ї  TheHuntersdecidedtodemolishtheexistingbuildingandtoconstructanewonethatwould  notinterferewiththeeasement.Becausetheprojectincludedtheconstructionofanewbuilding,  MetropolitanGovernmentofNashville&DavidsonCounty,TennesseeCode17.24.240(2002)  ( MetroCode)requiredthecreationofa20foot BLandscapeBufferbecausethepropertywas t adjacenttoresidentiallyzonedproperty.G *#  1      ׀TheHuntersincludedalandscapebufferintheplans ` submittedtoobtainabuildingpermit,andtheDepartmentofCodesAdministrationissuedabuilding L  permitbasedontheseplans. 8    TheHuntersproceededtodemolishtheoldbuildingandtoconstructthenewbuildingbut  ` didnotconstructthelandscapebuffer.TheDepartmentofCodesAdministrationdeclinedtoissue  L  auseandoccupancypermitbecauseofthisomission.Ratherthanconstructingthelandscapebuffer,  8  theHuntersappliedtotheMetropolitanBoardofZoningAppealsforavariancefromthelandscape $  bufferrequirement.FollowingapublichearingonDecember2,1999,theBoardissuedanorderon   December7,1999decliningtograntthevariancebecausetheconstructionplanshadincludeda   landscapebufferandbecausetheHuntershadfailedtodemonstratethattherequirementofa   landscapebufferimposedahardshiponthem.     OnFebruary1,2000,theHuntersfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe \ ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyassertingthattheBoardhadactedarbitrarilyandcapriciously H bydenyingtheirrequestforavariance.  *#  2      ׀FollowingahearingregardingtheHuntersamended 4 petition,thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumandorderonFebruary27,2002,denyingthepetition  p forwritofcommonlawcertiorari.TheHuntershaveappealed.  \ @) II.  4 @hh TheStandardofReview      Thepropervehicleforseekingjudicialreviewofadecisionbyalocalboardofzoning  appealsisapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari.McCallenv.CityofMemphis,786S.W.2d  633,639(Tenn.1990);Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningApp.,955S.W.2d52,54(Tenn.  Ct.App.1997).Accordingly,despitethetrialcourtsdecisiontoreviewtheBoardsdecisionusing l Tenn.CodeAnn.45322(1998),h *#  3      ׀wewillreviewtheBoardsdecisionusingthestandardsmore X  commonlyapplicabletoreviewingdecisionseithertograntordenypetitionsforcommonlawwrits D! ofcertiorari. 0"    Acommonlawwritofcertiorariprovidesquitelimitedjudicialreview.Willisv.Tennessee $X" DeptofCorr.,113S.W.3d706,712(Tenn.2003);Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879 $D # S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Thescopeofthisreviewgoesnofurtherthandetermining  whethertheadministrativebodyexceededitsjurisdiction,followedanunlawfulprocedure,acted  illegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently,oractedwithoutmaterialevidencetosupportitsdecision.  Fallinv.KnoxCountyBd.ofCommrs,656S.W.2d338,34243(Tenn.1983);Hutchersonv. t LauderdaleCountyBd.ofZoningApp.,121S.W.3d372,375(Tenn.Ct.App.2002);421Corp.v. ` MetropolitanGovt,36S.W.3d469,474(Tenn.Ct.App.2000). L    Judicialreviewunderacommonlawwritofcertiorariislimitedtotherecordmadebefore $ t theboardoragency,unlessthecourthaspermittedtheintroductionofadditionalevidenceonthe  ` issueofwhethertheboardoragencyexceededitsjurisdiction,oractedillegally,capriciously,or  L  arbitrarily.Cooperv.WilliamsonCountyBd.ofEduc.,746S.W.2d176,179(Tenn.1987);Davison  8  v.Carr,659S.W.2d361,363(Tenn.1983).Thereviewingcourtswillnotreweightheevidence,; *#  4       $  examinetheintrinsiccorrectnessofthedecisionbeingreviewed,< *#  5      ׀orsubstitutetheirjudgmentfor   thatofthelocalofficials.=, *#  6      ׀     Acommonlawwritofcertiorarilikewiseprovideslimitedoptionsfordealingwitherrors   discoveredintheproceedingsbeingreviewed.Becausecourtsshouldavoiddictatingspecific p decisionstolocalzoningboardsexceptinthemostextraordinarycircumstances,themostcommon \ judicialremedyinzoningcasesistoremandthecasetothezoningagencywithinstructions H appropriatetothecircumstancesofthecase.Ratherthanshoulderingthelocalagency's 4 responsibilities,thecourtsshouldinsistthattheagencycarryoutitstaskinanappropriatemanner.  p Thegoalofaremandshouldbetoplacethepartiesandtheagencyinthepositiontheywouldhave  \ beeninhadtheagencynotactedimproperly.Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningApp.,955 H S.W.2dat55. 4   Becauseacommon-lawwritofcertiorariisanextraordinaryjudicialremedy,Robinsonv.   Traughber,13S.W.3d361,364(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),itisnotavailableasamatterofright.Boyce  v.Williams,215Tenn.704,713-14,389S.W.2d272,277(1965);Yokleyv.State,632S.W.2d123,  127(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Decisionseithertograntortodenythewritareaddressedtothetrial  court'sdiscretion.Blackmonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,29S.W.3d875,878(Tenn.Ct.App. l 2000).Accordingly,thecourtsreviewthesedecisionsusingthefamiliar"abuseofdiscretion" X  standard.Underthisstandard,areviewingcourtshouldnotreverseatrialcourt'sdiscretionary D! decisionunlessitappliesanincorrectlegalstandard,reachesadecisionthatisillogical,basesits 0"  decisiononaclearlyerroneousassessmentoftheevidence,oremploysreasoningthatcausesan #l! injusticetothecomplainingparty.Perryv.Perry,114S.W.3d465,467(Tenn.2003);Clinardv. $X" Blackwood,46S.W.3d177,182(Tenn.2001);Overstreetv.Shoneys,Inc.,4S.W.3d694,709  (Tenn.Ct.App.1999).  @^^( III.  t @DD  ThePresentationandConsiderationoftheHuntersEvidence  `   TheHuntersfirstassertthattheBoarddidnotgivethemafairhearingbecauseitarbitrarily 8  refusedtoallowWilburnHoneycutt,theirengineer,totestifyabouthisconversationwith amember $ t oftheZoningCommitteeregardingtheneedforalandscapebufferandtheeffectoftherailroad  ` rightofwayontheconstructionoftheirnewbuilding.TheyalsoinsistthattheBoardpreventedMr.  L  Honeycuttfrompresentingcorrespondencefromtheirtenantsarchitectregardingtheintendeduse  8  ofthenewlyconstructedbuilding. $    WehavereviewedthetranscriptoftheBoardsDecember2,1999hearingandcanfindno   supportforthisassertion.TheBoardpermittedbothJamesR.Hunter,Mr.Huntersson,andMr.   Honeycutttoparticipatefullyinthehearing.ThereisnoindicationthattheBoarddidanythingto   deprivetheHuntersofafairopportunitytopresenttheircase.TheBoarddidnotinterrupteitherMr. p HunterorMr.Honeycutt,andneitherofthemprotestedthattheyneededmoretime.Accordingly, \ therecorddoesnotsupporttheHuntersassertionthattheBoardactedarbitrarilybyrefusingto H permitthemtopresenttheircase. 4   Changingtheirfocusslightly,theHuntersalsoassertthattheBoardactedarbitrarily,  \ capriciously,andillegallybecauseit refusedtoconsidertheevidencetheypresented.This H argument,liketheirpreviousone,isnotsupportedbythetranscriptofthehearing.WhiletheBoard 4 wasclearlyunpersuadedbytheHunterspresentation,therecordprovidesnobasisforconcluding   thattheBoarddidnotatleastconsidertheevidenceandargumentstheHunterspresented.? *#  7      ׀   @dd) IV.   @    TheBoardsDenialoftheHuntersRequestforaContinuance     TheHuntersalsoarguethattheBoardactedarbitrarilybydecliningtopermitthemto X  withdrawtheirapplication.ThetrialcourtconcludedthattheHunterselectedtoproceedwiththe D! hearingratherthanwaitanothersixmonthstofileanotherapplicationforavariance.Whilethe 0"  recordonthispointissomewhatunclear,itdoesnotappearthattheBoardactedarbitrarilyby #l! adheringtoitsruleregardingtheeffectofwithdrawinganapplicationafterthepublichearinghas $X" started. $D #   TheBoardconsistsofsevenmembers.Notonlydofourmembersconstituteaquorumto &"% transactbusiness,buttheaffirmativevoteofatleastfourmembersisrequiredfortheBoardtoact. '#& Thus,personsseekingavariancefromtheBoardmustobtainfouraffirmativevotestobesuccessful, (#' nomatterhowmanymembersoftheBoardarepresentataparticularhearing.Understandingthese  proceduralrulesilluminatesthepartiesactionsduringtheDecember2,1999hearing.    OnlyfourmembersoftheBoardwerepresentfortheDecember2,1999hearing.Thatmeant t thattheHunterscouldnotobtaintheirvarianceunlessallfourboardmemberspresentatthemeeting ` votedintheirfavor.A *#  8      ׀TheHuntersinitiallyrequestedthatthehearingbecontinuedfortwoweeks, L  buttheBoarddeclinedafterneighboringlandownersobjected.Later,afterthehearingstarted,the 8  Huntersaskedtowithdrawtheapplication.WhentheBoardanditsstaffinformedtheHuntersthat $ t personswhowithdrewtheirapplicationsafterapublichearingstartedcouldnotfileanother  ` applicationforsixmonths,theHuntersdecidedtoproceedbecausetheyrealizedthattheywere  L  facingimmediateenforcementofthelandscapebufferrequirementiftheBoarddidnotgrantthem  8  avariance. $    ThisrecordprovidesnobasisforconcludingthattheBoardsproceduralrulesareinherently   arbitraryorthattheBoardenforceditsrulesarbitrarilywithregardtoitsconsiderationofthe   Huntersapplicationforavariance.TheHunterselectedtoproceedwiththehearingratherthan   beingrequiredtowaitsixmonthstofileanotherapplication.Inlightofthistacticaldecision,the p HuntersareinnopositiontocomplainthattheBoardabuseditsdiscretionbyfollowingitsown \ proceduralrules. H @) V.   p @+ +  TheHuntersClaimThatTheyAreExemptfromthe  \ @LandscapeBufferRequirement  H   TheHuntersrenewtheirargumentthattheyshouldbeexemptfromthelandscapebuffer   requirementbecausetheiruseofthepropertycommencedbeforelandscapebufferswererequired   andhascontinuedwithoutchangeeversince.Thetrialcourtdeclinedtoconsiderthemeritsofthis  claimonproceduralgrounds.WehavedeterminedthattheBoarddidnotactarbitrarily,  capriciously,orillegallybybasingitsdenialoftherequestedvarianceonitsbeliefthatthelandscape  bufferordinanceappliedtotheHunterspropertyoncetheydecidedtoconstructanewbuilding. l   TheHuntersdidnotargueintheiroriginaloramendedpetitionforcommonlawwritof D! certiorarithattheirpropertywasexemptfromthelandscapebufferrequirementbyvirtueofTenn. 0"  CodeAnn.137208(1999)andMetroCode17.04.020(D)(1999),17.24.030(A)(2002).They #l! madethisargumentforthefirsttimewhentheyfiledtheirtrialbriefrequestingadeclaratory $X" judgmentthattheenforcementofthelandscapebufferrequirementwouldviolatetheseprovisions. $D # ThetrialcourtdeterminedthattheHunterscouldnotseekadeclaratoryjudgmentbecausetheycould %0!$ notusetheirtrialbrieftoamendtheirpetitionsandbecausecombiningoriginalandappellatecauses &"% ofactioninthesamecaseisimproper. '#&  (#'   TheHuntersrequestforadeclaratoryjudgmentwasinartful,andthetrialcourtcorrectly  determinedthatappellatecausesofaction,likeapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari,maynot  becombinedwithoriginalcausesofaction,likepetitionsfordeclaratoryjudgment.However,the  trialcourtcouldhaveaddressedwhethertheBoardactedarbitrarily,capriciously,orillegallyby t basingitsdecisiontodenytherequestedvarianceonitsunderstandingthatthelandscapebuffer ` ordinanceappliedtotheHuntersproject.Accordingly,wewilladdressthesubstanceofthe L  Huntersclaim. 8    Asweunderstandtheirargument,theHuntersassertthattheyshouldnotberequiredto  ` constructalandscapebufferontheirpropertybecausetheybeganusingthepropertylongbeforethe  L  enactmentoftheordinancesrequiringtheconstructionofthesebuffers.Theyarguethattheyshould  8  beallowedtocontinuetousetheirpropertyastheyalwayshaveandthatrequiringthemtoconstruct $  alandscapebufferisinconsistentwiththeirprioruseoftheirproperty.TheHuntersargumentis   notsupportedbyestablishedlandusejurisprudence.Itoverlooksthemarkeddifferencebetweenthe   legalprinciplesregardingalandownersuseofpropertyandthelegalprinciplesgoverninga   landownersobligationtoseetoitthatthestructuresonitspropertymeetallapplicablebuilding,   safety,andzoningrequirements. p   Thestatutesandordinancesgoverningnonconforminguseshavenoapplicationtothiscase.D *#  9      ׀ H NeithertheBoard,northecodesadministrators,northeHuntersneighborsassertedthattheirpast 4 orplanneduseofthepropertywassomehowinconsistentwiththeusespermittedbythepropertys  p zoningclassification.Everyoneagreesthatthepropertymaycontinuetobeusedforthesame  \ purposesithasalwaysbeenusedfor.TheonlyissueiswhethertheHuntersnewbuildingmeets H theapplicablebuildingrequirements. 4   TheHuntersinsistthatthelandscapebufferordinanceitselfexemptsthemfromits   requirements.Tosupporttheirclaim,theyciteMetroCode17.24.030(A)whichexempts   improvementsorrepairstotheinteriororexteriorfeaturesofexistingstructureswhichdonotresult  inexpansion,changesinlanduse,ortheremovalordestructionoftrees.Thisexemption,byits  ownterms,doesnotapplytotheHunters.Theyhaveneitherimprovednorrepairedtheinterioror l exteriorofanexistingstructure.Theyhaveinsteaddemolishedanexistingstructureandconstructed X  anentirelynewone.Becausetheconstructionofnewbuildingsisnotexplicitlyexcludedfromthe D! applicationofthelandscapebufferrequirements,theHuntersnewbuildingwasrequiredtocomply 0"  withtheserequirementsinordertoobtainauseandoccupancypermit. #l! ̀  Asageneralmatter,allnewlyconstructedorsignificantlyrenovatedbuildingsandstructures $D # mustcomplywiththeapplicablebuilding,healthandsafetyrequirementsnomatterwhethertheir %0!$ useisconformingornonconforming.Bastianv.CityofTwinFalls,658P.2d978,98081(Idaho &"% Ct.App.1983)(landownererectingabuildingisnotinsulatedfromcompliancewiththelandscaping '#& andoffstreetparkingrequirementsgenerallyapplicabletotheconstructionofnewbuildingsorthe (#' expansionofoldones);Brownv.CityofCleveland,420N.E.2d103,10506(Ohio1981) )$( (landownerbuildinganewstructuremustcomplywithaccessoryoffstreetparkingrequirements); |*%) Taftv.ZoningBd.ofReview,64A.2d200,203(R.I.1949)(structuralalterationsofabuilding  requirethelandownertocomplywithpertinentbuildingordinances);1KennethH.Young,  AndersonsAmericanLawofZoning6.78,at72324(4thed.1996)( AndersonsAmerican  LawofZoning). t   Basedonthisrecord,theHuntershavefailedtopresentanypersuasiveargumentthatthe L  landscapebufferrequirementdidnotapplytotheirprojectoncetheydecidedtoconstructanew 8  buildingontheirproperty.Alocalgovernmentmaydeclinetoissueofacertificateofoccupancy $ t whenthelandownerhasfailedtocomplywithapplicablelocalzoningrequirementsorbuilding  ` codes.Celaniv.Marconi,682N.Y.S.2d754,756(App.Div.1998).Therefore,wefindnobasis  L  forconcludingthatMetroactedarbitrarily,capriciously,orillegallybydecliningtoissuetheHunters  8  acertificateofoccupancyuntiltheyconstructedtherequiredlandscapebuffer. $  @dd) VI.    @  TheHuntersRequestforaVariance      Asafinalmatter,theHuntersassertthattheypresentedsufficientevidencetosupporttheir p applicationforavarianceandthattheBoardactedarbitrarily,capriciously,orillegallybydeclining \ tograntthemrelieffromthelandscapebufferrequirement.TheBoardassertsthattheHuntersfailed H todemonstratethattheymetalltherequirementsforavariance.WeconcurwiththeBoard. 4   Avarianceisanauthorizationtoconstructormaintainabuildingorstructureortoestablish  \ ormaintainauseoflandthatisotherwiseprohibitedbythezoningordinance.Andersons H AmericanLawofZoning20.02,at410.Itisnotgrantedasamatterofright,DiGiovanniv. 4 BoardofAppeals,474N.E.2d198,204(Mass.Ct.App.1985);3E.C.Yokley,ZoningLaw&   Practice201(4thed.,rev.vol.2002)( ZoningLaw&Practice),butratheritisaformof   administrativerelieffromtheliteralimportandstrictapplicationofthezoningregulations.    Grantingordenyingavarianceisadiscretionarydecision.Glanklerv.CityofMemphis,481  S.W.2d376,378(Tenn.1972);Reddochv.Smith,214Tenn.213,223,379S.W.2d641,645(1964). l Thedecisiondependsonanalyzingtheparticularfactsofeachcase,ZoningLaw&Practice20 X  2,inlightofthestandardssuppliedintheapplicablestatutesandzoningordinance.Tenn.Code D! Ann.137207(3)permitslocalboardsofzoningappealstograntvariances 0"  8  8`   [w]here,byreasonofexceptionalnarrowness,shallownessorshape $X" ofaspecificpieceofpropertyatthetimeoftheenactmentofthe $D # zoningregulation,orbyreasonofexceptionaltopographicconditions %0!$ orotherextraordinaryandexceptionalsituationorconditionofsuch &"% pieceofproperty,thestrictapplicationofanyregulationenacted '#& underthispartorpart3ofthischapterwouldresultinpeculiarand (#' exceptionalpracticaldifficultiestoorexceptionorunduehardship )$( upontheownerofsuchproperty.|*%)` x` x   h+&* In_addition,_ԀTenn.CodeAnn.137207(3)providesthatavarianceshouldnotbegrantedifitwill   cause substantialdetrimenttothepublicgoodor [substantialimpairmentto]theintentand  purposeofthezoneplanandzoningordinance.    Inacomplementaryprovision,MetroCode17.40.370statesthattheBoardmaygranta ` varianceonlyifitmakesaffirmativefindingsoffactwithregardtoeachofthefollowingstandards: L  8  8`   A.PhysicalCharacteristicsoftheProperty.Theexceptional $ t narrowness,shallownessorshapeofaspecificpieceofproperty,  ` exceptionaltopographiccondition,orotherextraordinaryand  L  exceptionalconditionofsuchpropertywouldresultinpeculiarand  8  exceptionalpracticaldifficultiesto,orexceptionalorunduehardship $  upontheownerofsuchpropertyuponthestrictapplicationofany   regulationenactedbytheordinancecodifiedinthistitle. ` x` x 8  8`   B.UniqueCharacteristics.Thespecificconditionscitedareunique   tothesubjectpropertyandgenerallynotprevalenttootherproperties p inthegeneralarea.\` x` x 8  8`   C.HardshipNotSelfImposed.Theallegeddifficultyorhardship 4 hasnotbeencreatedbythepreviousactionsofanypersonhavingan  p interestinthepropertyaftertheeffectivedateoftheordinance  \ codifiedinthistitle.H` x` x 8  8`   D.FinancialGainNotOnlyBasis.Financialgainisnotthesole   basisforgrantingthevariance.g *#  10       ` x` x 8  8`   E.NoInjurytoNeighboringProperty.Thegrantingofthevariance  willnotbeinjurioustootherpropertyorimprovementsinthearea,  impairanadequatesupplyoflightandairtoadjacentproperty,or l substantiallydiminishorimpairpropertyvalueswithinthearea.X ` x` x 8  8`   F.NoHarmtoPublicWelfare.Thegrantingofthevariancewillnot 0"  bedetrimentaltothepublicwelfareandwillnotsubstantiallyimpair #l! theintentandpurposeofthiszoningcode.$X"` x` x 8  8`   G.IntegrityofMasterDevelopmentPlan.Thegrantingofthe %0!$ variancewillnotcompromisethedesignintegrityorfunctional &"% operationofactivitiesorfacilitieswithinanapprovedplannedunit '#& development.(#'` x` x Ї  TheHuntersdecidedtodemolishtheirexistingbuildingandtoconstructanewonetosatisfy  thedemandsoftheirlessee.Aftertheytoredowntheexistingbuilding,theylearnedthattheycould  notconstructthenewbuildinginthesamelocationbecauseofapreviouslyunknownrailroad  easement.Thus,theywererequiredtoresitethenewbuilding.Movingthelocationofthenew t buildingontheproperty,placedparking,storage,andoperatingspaceatapremium,andaccordingly, ` theHuntersdecidednottoconstructtherequiredlandscapebufferinordertosatisfytheirlessees L  demandformoreoperatingspace. 8    LiketheBoard,wefindthattheHuntersfailedtodemonstratehowthephysical  ` characteristicsoftheirpropertysignificantlyinterferedwiththeirbeneficialuseorthattheircurrent  L  predicamentwasnotcausedbytheirvoluntarydecisiontodemolishtheirexistingbuildingand  8  constructanewone.ItappearsthattheHuntersprincipalreasonforseekingthevariancewastheir $  concernthattheirtenantwouldeithermoveordemandareductionintherent.Pecuniarylossand   selfimposedhardshipdonotprovideadequategroundsforgrantingavariance.Accordingly,we   failtofindthattheBoardactedarbitrarily,capriciously,orillegallywhenitdeclinedtograntthe   Huntersrelieffromthelandscapebufferrequirements.   @==( VII.  \   Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurther 4 proceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealjointlyandseverallytoJamesW.  p HunterandJamesR.Hunterandtheirsuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.  \    `     h     _____________________________      `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.