ÿWPCŽ ósó<¤'%ˆ%³ì­K¡Ë.ˆ%FÔü¼ ð_š¢÷¾ÁRúgGÉ’Îù¨6ù{¨³œ‚Å>Ùßô:8 ²å›\TCÂÿH\ÇzlGÙ«[ ¡Â/OÃÁC™6±'ƒp)ÝÞ{ƒN* ””Î#]uÆ\Õ.s\þdžãe1µçÇS >«ÐP(Ó8I“lӯ·Mîaôׯp¡ÁŒ3$Ê,Ⳬ ;˜çž´ÂÿG¦®÷ Ê o{)V꬚Ì!ìçó$ +ßï/9Ä<1Âf”¶<’Ù(7‘ûQžõÙw±kv®f…7Œ ê´EO<ÀÇró Ts¯+•?G&-†G͸]iŽÛysÁ#Xª¤f¢3å“Qò Ø91< –ÿžK·fºÔik–¦{¡xZ\“˜|ʜՅ YÁÔFº‹èÇ_èMÒ<«W!°*W)îEÛo_/(wÙwoŒ%¨áî½l\Uu® 3³åú¬Øãxjô° 4UT pó795¢ÖÒÁf¯ Ö¿ð`[nq®•`ÙWŸæ T;±òËÛdŸ7ó[<†´¹a±dñ¸%Kú‰vË3Y·g½̉·‡ÅN’Ç',b5 èAý®üNï¿»»qb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ €Ð 0DP Æ” ÆZ Æ Ææ #ɬNuwwEb 0뉉‰‰ Btt 0¤‘ D55 D-j 0K—— ASâÆ5 0¤û 0DŸ A«ã»˜¨‚0Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ü•¢3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ vÝ ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€this€matter€was€initiated€as€two€cases€upon€the€filing€of€a€separate€petition€as€to€each€tract,€theseÐ ° Ðcases€were€subsequently€consolidated€by€agreement€of€the€parties€and€are€consolidated€for€purposes€of€this€appeal.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0  - ù-(|G2k$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøeò»»Ô d(|3u$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼[%»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñ€€€€à@ü ü ìàÔ‡îUl[%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼[%»îîUl#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€15,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÙX»¼[%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[%»XXÙõ#ÔCITY€OF€SEVIERVILLE€v.€BILL€GREEN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÙX»¼[%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sevier€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„194„II€and€No.€97„195„II€€€€€€Richard€R.€Vance,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€JULY€30,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02467„COA„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€from€the€Sevier€County€Circuit€Court€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÐ xÈ  Ðawarding€landowners€compensation€for€incidental€damages€to€their€property€because€the€City€ofÐ d´ ÐSevierville€changed€the€frontage€access€to€their€property€from€unlimited€access€to€restricted€access.€Ð P  ÐWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.Ð <Œ ÐÓ¬ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€CauseÐ d ÐRemandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[%»àXÙj#ÔÔ‡XÙX.¼[%ÔHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.óó,Ð Ø( Ðand€òòD.€Michael€Swineyóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌLinda€J.€Hamilton€Ô_ÔMowlesÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€City€of€SeviervilleÐ œì ÐÌRobert€L.€Ogle,€Jr.,€Sevierville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Bill€Green,€Claudine€Green,€DallasÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô,€and€Jean€Ô_ÔCoffmanÔ_ÔÐ `° ÐÓõÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[%»XXÙ$#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼[%»XXÙ° #ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%ÔÓ  Óà  àIn€this€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sevier€County€the€Appellant,€the€City€of€SeviervilleÐ #`" Ð(hereinafter€'the€City')€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€its€award€of€incidental€damages€to€theÐ ü#L# ÐAppellees,€Bill€Green,€Claudine€Green,€Dallas€Ô_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô€and€Jean€Ô_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô€(hereinafter€'theÐ è$8 $ ÐLandowners')€for€the€restriction€of€access€to€their€property.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌà  àThe€subject€property€in€this€matter€is€located€on€U.S.€Highway€441€in€the€City€of€SeviervilleÐ ¬'ü"' Ðand€consists€of€two€adjoining€tracts€designated€in€the€record€as€Tract€5,€owned€by€the€Appellees,€BillÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âGreen,€Claudine€Green,€Dallas€Ô_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô€and€Jean€Ô_ÔCoffmanÔ_Ô,€and€Tract€7,€owned€by€Mr.€Green€andÐ „)Ô$)ýð ÐÔ_ ÔMr.€Coffman.€€In€March€of€1997€a€portion€of€each€of€the€tracts€was€condemned€upon€petitions׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€City€so€that€the€City€could€implement€a€road€construction€project€to€widen€U.S.€Highway€441Ð œì Ðfrom€four€lanes€to€six€lanes.€€At€the€time€of€condemnation€lessees€of€the€Landowners€were€operatingÐ ˆØ Ða€fruit€stand€and€country€market€on€Tract€5€and€a€convenience€store€and€gasoline€outlet€on€Tract€7.€Ð tÄ ÐIt€is€undisputed€that€there€was€unrestricted€access€to€the€front€of€each€tract€from€Highway€441€at€theÐ `° Ðtime€of€condemnation.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€granting€the€City's€petition€for€condemnation€the€Trial€Court€allowed€the€City€to€take€aÐ $ t Ðportion€of€the€frontage€of€Tract€5,€a€slope€easement€as€to€Tract€7€and€temporary€constructionÐ  ` Ðeasements€as€to€both€tracts.€€Additionally,€in€accordance€with€the€construction€plan,€sidewalks,Ð ü L  Ðcurbing€and€guttering€were€installed€between€Highway€441€and€Tracts€5€and€7€with€the€result€thatÐ è 8  Ðthere€was€no€longer€unlimited€access€to€the€Landowners'€property€from€Highway€441.€€Instead,Ð Ô$  Ðaccess€to€the€property€from€Highway€441€was€restricted€to€two€driveways€constructed€by€the€City€„Ð À  Ðone€to€serve€Tract€5€and€one€to€serve€Tract€7.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€July€of€2001€a€hearing€was€conducted€to€determine€the€amount€of€compensation€whichÐ „Ô  Ðshould€be€allowed€the€Landowners€in€consequence€of€the€road€construction€project.€€As€stated€by€theÐ pÀ ÐTrial€Court€in€its€judgment€of€September€7,€2001,€the€principal€issues€at€this€hearing€were€"the€valueÐ \¬ Ðof€the€land€taken€and€incidental€damage€to€the€property€as€a€result€of€highway€widening,€diminutionÐ H˜ Ðof€the€value€of€the€remaining€property€and€changing€the€access€to€the€property€from€being€unlimitedÐ 4„ Ðalong€the€highway€frontage€to€being€restricted€by€curbing€with€two€limited€access€openings."€€BasedÐ  p Ðupon€the€evidence€presented€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€the€Trial€Court€found€"that€Tract€5Ð  \ Ðsuffered€incidental€damages€for€restricted€access€in€the€amount€of€$40,000.00€and€that€Tract€7Ð øH Ðsuffered€incidental€damage€for€restricted€access€in€the€amount€of€$30,000.00."Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Cityððs€sole€issue€raised€in€this€appeal,€which€we€restate,€€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€erredÐ ¼  Ðin€granting€the€Landowners€incidental€damages€by€reason€of€the€fact€that€access€to€the€Landowners'Ð ¨ø Ðproperty€was€restricted€as€a€result€of€the€City's€road€construction€project.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€T.R.A.P.€13(d),€we€review€a€non„jury€case€such€as€this€one€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ l¼ Ðrecord€of€the€trial€court.€€We€presume€that€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€correct€and,€unlessÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€on€the€record€preponderates€to€the€contrary,€we€must€affirm€those€findings.€€òòUnion€CarbideÐ D!” ÐCorp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€1993).€€There€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€withÐ 0"€  Ðrespect€to€a€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law.€€òòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óó,€919€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1996).Ô#†¼[%»XXÙ #ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%ԀР$X" ÐÌà  àBefore€we€address€the€issue€stated€above€we€note€the€City's€assertion€that€the€Trial€CourtÐ à%0!$ Ðerred€in€awarding€incidental€damages€based€on€the€discrepancy€in€elevation€between€the€Landowners'Ð Ì&"% Ðproperty€and€Highway€441€after€completion€of€construction.€€Although€the€record€shows€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€was€presented€at€trial€by€both€parties€with€respect€to€the€change€in€elevation€between€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproperty€and€the€highway€and€the€causes€and€impact€of€that€change,€we€do€not€find€that€the€TrialÐ ° ÐCourt's€award€of€incidental€damages€was€based€upon€that€factor.€€Nowhere€in€its€judgment€does€theÐ œì ÐTrial€Court€indicate€that€it€considered€change€in€elevation€in€awarding€incidental€damages€in€thisÐ ˆØ Ðcase.€€It€is€our€determination€that€the€Trial€Court's€award€of€incidental€damages€was€basedÐ tÄ Ðexclusively€upon€its€finding€that,€as€a€result€of€the€City's€actions,€the€Landowners'€property€wasÐ `° Ðdeprived€of€unlimited€access€to€Highway€441.€Consistent€with€this€determination€we€note€theÐ L œ Ðspecific€language€in€the€Court's€judgment€with€reference€to€the€change€in€access€"to€the€propertyÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€being€unlimited€along€the€highway€frontage€to€being€restricted€by€curbing€with€two€limitedÐ $ t Ðaccess€openings".€€Accordingly,€we€decline€to€address€the€City's€argument€that€the€Trial€Court€erredÐ  ` Ðin€granting€damages€based€upon€elevation€change.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€now€address€the€City's€assertion€that€incidental€damages€should€not€have€been€allowedÐ Ô$  Ðupon€the€finding€that€access€to€the€Landowners'€property€was€unlimited€prior€to€construction€andÐ À  Ðrestricted€to€two€driveways€thereafter.€€Various€arguments€are€presented€by€the€City€in€support€of€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðassertion.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àÌà  àFirst,€the€City€argues€that€the€normal€disturbances€to€business€and€traffic€caused€by€aÐ pÀ Ðconstruction€project€like€the€one€in€this€case€are€not€compensable.€€In€support€of€its€argument€theÐ \¬ ÐCity€cites€the€following€language€from€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€an€unreported€opinion€of€this€Court€filed€inÐ H˜ ÐNashville€on€November€3,€1989:Ð 4„ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒDamages€resulting€from€inconvenience€during€construction€are€not€recoverableÐ  \ Ðin€a€condemnation€action.€€òòCooper,óó€òòibidóó€at€page€3.Ð øH ÐÌIn€accordance€with€the€prevailing€rule,€it€has€been€held€that€mere€inconvenience€Ð Ð  Ðin€carrying€on€the€business€by€reason€of€a€condemnation€cannot€be€considered.€Ð ¼  ÐThus,€in€the€absence€of€statutory€authorization€to€the€contrary,€the€temporaryÐ ¨ø Ðobstruction€of€a€highway€(or€lands€other€than€those€upon€which€the€business€isÐ ”ä Ðconducted),€resulting€in€the€interruption€of€such€business,€does€not€give€rise€to€aÐ €Ð Ðclaim€for€compensation.€€Where,€as€the€result€of€the€improvement€of€a€street,€thereÐ l¼ Ðis€diversion€of€traffic€causing€a€loss€to€a€business€fronting€upon€such€street€it€hasÐ X ¨ Ðbeen€held,€generally,€that€such€loss€is€not€to€be€considered€in€fixing€the€damagesÐ D!” Ðof€the€owner€of€such€business.€òò€Cooper,€ibid€óóat€page€4.€€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌà  àWe€do€not€agree€that€the€rule€stated€in€òò€State€v.€Cooperóó,€òòibidóó.€is€relevant€under€the€factsÐ $X" Ðpresented€in€this€case.€€In€òòCooper€óóthe€issue€before€the€Court,€with€respect€to€which€the€above€citedÐ ô$D # Ðlanguage€pertains,€was€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€allow€the€landowner€to€testify€as€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€effect€of€the€use€of€a€òòtemporary€óóconstruction€easement€upon€accessibility€to€the€landownerððsÐ Ì&"% Ðservice€station€during€construction.€€The€issue€now€before€this€Court€involves€òòpermanentóó€restrictionÐ ¸'#& Ðof€access€as€a€result€of€construction,€not€temporary€loss€of€access€during€construction.€We€note€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Trial€Court€specifically€excludes€compensation€for€losses€incurred€òòduringóó€construction€in€itsÐ )à$( Ðjudgment€of€September€7,€2001:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àTestimony€regarding€loss€of€business€suffered€by€the€leasehold€tenant€ofÐ ° Ðthe€property€during€construction€was€immaterial.€€It€is€settled€law€that€a€landownerÐ œì Ðcannot€be€compensated€for€inconvenience€or€loss€of€business€occasioned€by€aÐ ˆØ Ðhighway€construction€project.€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌà  àThe€City€also€cites€the€case€of€òòSadler€d/b/a€Xanadu€Video€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€anÐ L œ Ðunreported€opinion€of€this€Court€filed€in€Nashville€on€March€13,€2001.€The€City€argues€that,Ð 8 ˆ Ðalthough€the€òòSadler€óócase€involved€a€claim€for€òòtemporaryóó€inconvenience€resulting€from€roadÐ $ t Ðconstruction,€in€denying€the€claim€the€Court€referenced€three€cases€in€which€complaining€propertyÐ  ` Ðowners€were€denied€compensation€when€access€to€their€property€was€òòpermanentlyóó€impaired€„€òòCityÐ ü L  Ðof€Memphis€v.€Hoodóó,€345€S.W.2d€887€(Tenn.1961);€€òòAmbrose€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€728€S.W.2d€338Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986)€and€òò€Hayes€v.€City€of€Maryvilleóó,€747€S.W.2d€346€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIt€is€our€determination€that€the€instant€case€is€significantly€different€from€these€three€casesÐ ¬ü  Ðeach€of€which€involved€the€redirection€of€traffic€along€the€street€adjacent€to€the€landownerððs€propertyÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€two„way€to€one„way.€€In€each€of€these€cases€the€landownerððs€complaint€arose€from€the€cityððsÐ „Ô  Ðchange€of€traffic€flow€along€a€public€road.€Ô#†¼[%»XXÙÞ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%Ô€In€òòóóthe€òòHood€óócaseòò€óóthe€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ pÀ Ðrecognized€that€the€"change€of€the€flow€of€traffic,€making€a€street€a€four„lane€highway€or€divertingÐ \¬ Ðtraffic€one€way€or€the€other€"€comes€from€"the€exercise€of€the€police€power€of€the€governing€parties"Ð H˜ Ðand€damages€resulting€therefrom€are€non„compensable.€€In€the€case€before€us€the€impairment€ofÐ 4„ Ðaccess€to€the€Landowners'€property€resulted€solely€from€the€construction€of€curbs,€sidewalks€andÐ  p Ðguttering€between€such€property€and€Highway€441€and€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€compelsÐ  \ Ðus€to€the€conclusion€that€the€purpose€or€effect€of€this€construction€was€to€redirect€the€flow€of€trafficÐ øH Ðalong€the€Highway.€€The€Court€in€òòHood€óóadditionally€recognized€the€right€of€access€at€page€889:Ð ä4 ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒOf€course,€the€property€owners€fronting€upon€a€public€thoroughfare€have€a€rightÐ ¼  Ðto€free€and€convenient€access€thereto.€€This€right€of€€ingress€and€egress€attachesÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€land.€€It€is€a€property€right,€as€complete€as€ownership€of€the€land€itself.€€Ð ”ä ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌà  àWe€find€nothing€in€the€three€cases€cited€by€the€Court€in€òòSadleróó€that€compels€us€to€find€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€City's€restriction€of€access€to€the€Landowners'€property€in€this€case€is€non„compensable.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€City€next€argues€that€"full€access"€to€the€Landowners'€property€is€still€available€asÐ 0"€  Ðevidenced€by€the€fact€that€ð ðconversion€vans,€large€dump€trucks,€sports€utility€vehicles,€vehiclesÐ #l! Ðpulling€trailers€and€campers,€and€cars"€can€still€enter€the€property,€use€the€parking€lot,€and€purchaseÐ $X" Ðgasoline.€€The€City€further€argues€that,€in€fact,€there€is€now€actually€òògreateróó€access€to€the€propertyÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€in€the€course€of€its€construction€project€the€City€added€a€driveway€connecting€the€propertyÐ à%0!$ Ðto€Carl€Street,€a€side€street€from€which€the€property€had€not€previously€been€accessible.€The€CityÐ Ì&"% Ðasserts€that€the€Landowners€retain€free€and€convenient€access€to€the€property,€that€the€LandownersÐ ¸'#& Ðhave€established€no€particular€effect€on€their€property€as€a€result€of€the€decrease€in€access€and€arguesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€simply€because€some€access€has€been€limited,€the€Landowners€should€not€automatically€receiveÐ )à$( Ðdamages.Ô#†¼[%»XXÙo4#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%ÔÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àEven€accepting€the€City's€argument€that€"full€access"€to€the€property€remains€available€weÐ ° Ðstill€find€that€access€to€the€property€has€been€impaired€in€the€sense€that€frontage€access€that€wasÐ œì Ðpreviously€unlimited€is€now€restricted€to€two€driveways.€€The€fact€that€the€same€type€of€vehicle€canÐ ˆØ Ðstill€enter€the€property€does€not€belie€the€fact€that€there€has€been€a€restriction€of€access€with€respectÐ tÄ Ðto€the€size€of€the€area€by€way€of€which€the€property€can€be€entered.€€We€believe€that€this€restrictionÐ `° Ðwould€necessarily€change€the€amount€of€traffic€in€and€out€of€the€property€because€it€is€easier€for€aÐ L œ Ðdriver€to€enter€property€with€unlimited€access€than€it€is€to€enter€property€where€access€is€restricted.Ð 8 ˆ ÐWe€further€disagree€with€the€City's€argument€that€the€addition€of€the€driveway€allowing€access€to€theÐ $ t Ðproperty€from€Carl€Street€suffices€to€compensate€for€the€restriction€of€frontage€access€along€HighwayÐ  ` Ð441and€we€find€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€addition€of€this€driveway€offsets€the€impairment€ofÐ ü L  Ðaccess€to€Highway€441.€à  àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€trial€record€reveals€testimonial€evidence€of€impairment€to€the€property€€inÐ À  Ðconsequence€of€the€limited€access€imposed€by€the€City.€€In€this€regard€we€note€the€followingÐ ¬ü  Ðtestimony€of€Betty€Krachey,€a€lessee€who€operated€a€gasoline€outlet€on€the€property€before€and€afterÐ ˜è  Ðthe€construction€project:Ð „Ô  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒQ€€And€what€about€after€they€constructed€the€road,€put€in€the€curbing€and€also€theÐ \¬ Ðdriveway,€the€driving€area?€€Did€you€have€any€problem€there?Ð H˜ ÐÌA€€Yes.€€Ð  p ÐÌQ€€What€was€the€problem?€€Ð øH ÐÌA€€Well,€I€had€no€more€camper€business€after€that€because€campers€couldn't€get€„„Ð Ð  Ðthe€way€they€had€the€driveways€set€up,€you€couldn't€get€into€the€pumps€with€likeÐ ¼  Ða€camper€or€a€truck€pulling€a€big€trailer.Ð ¨ø ÐÌQ€€Did€you€have€a€camper€business,€truck€business€before€that?€Ð €Ð ÐÌA€€Lots€of€it,€yes.Ð X ¨ ÐÌQ€What€problem€did€they€have€getting€in€and€out?Ð 0"€  ÐÌA€The€way€they€had€to€turn€in€with€their€campers,€you€just€couldn't€get€to€theÐ $X" Ðpumps€at€all.€€They€had€to€back€in€and€out€and€they€could€only€use€the€one€on€theÐ ô$D # Ðfar€side€by€the€road,€they€could€never€use€that€one€anymore€because€of€the€wayÐ à%0!$ Ðthey€had€to€turn€in.€€They€could€only€use€the€one€closest€to€the€store€if€they€couldÐ Ì&"% Ðeven€get€into€that€spot.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àWe€also€note€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Coffman€to€the€effect€of€the€limitation€of€access:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒÐ |*Ì%) ÐQ€€Now,€after€the€construction€in€the€condition€the€property€was€in,€the€locationÐ ° Ðâ âof€your€pumps€were€the€same€and€so€on,€you€know.€€Could€you€operate€that€as€aÐ œì Ðfilling€station?Ð ˆØ ÐÌA€€No.Ð `° ÐÌQ€€Why?Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌA€€Because€you'd€have€to€go€on€past€the€pumps€and€turn€around€and€come€back,Ð  ` Ðbeing€behind€the€curb,€and€our€business€just€went€to€pot.€€€€Ð ü L  ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌà  àFurther,€G.H.€Conner,€a€real€estate€broker€and€auctioneer,€testified€that€the€property€sufferedÐ Ô$  Ðtotal€incidental€damages€of€$179,798.00€and€that€a€portion€of€these€damages€were€attributable€to€theÐ À  Ðlimitation€of€access€to€the€property.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€believe€that€this€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€free€and€convenient€accessÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€property€has€been€impaired€as€a€result€of€the€City's€construction€and€that€such€impairment€hasÐ pÀ Ðhad€a€particular€effect€on€the€property.€€We€do€not€find€evidence€in€the€record€which€preponderatesÐ \¬ Ðto€the€contrary.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€City€next€contends€that€all€property€owners€along€the€Parkway€received€sidewalks€andÐ  p Ðcurbing€as€a€result€of€the€City's€construction€project€and€that€all€those€property€owners€who€had€openÐ  \ Ðfrontage€prior€to€the€construction€project€now€also€have€restricted€access€problems.€€The€City€citesÐ øH Ðthe€case€of€òòBetty€v.€Metropolitan€Govt.€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€Countyóó,€835€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ä4 ÐApp.€1992)€for€the€rule€that,€in€order€to€prove€damages€to€their€property,€the€Landowners€must€showÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€access€problems€of€which€they€complain€"produce€a€particular€and€direct€effect€on€theÐ ¼  Ðproperty€involved€not€shared€by€the€general€public".€€We€believe€that€the€above€cited€testimony€ofÐ ¨ø ÐMs.€Krachey€and€€Mr.€Coffman€provide€sufficient€evidence€that€limitation€of€access€to€the€propertyÐ ”ä Ðin€this€case€produced€"a€particular€and€direct€effect€on€the€property€not€shared€by€the€general€public."€Ð €Ð ÐThe€City's€assertions€to€the€contrary€are€without€merit.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€City€argues€that€the€Landowners€redeveloped€the€property€subsequent€to€the€roadÐ D!” Ðconstruction€project€and€that€State€regulations€would€have€required€that€the€Landowners€implementÐ 0"€  Ðthe€same€curb€cuts€and€designated€access€points€as€were€constructed€by€the€City.€€The€City€arguesÐ #l! Ðthat€the€Landowners€would€have,€therefore,€lost€their€unlimited€access€anyway€and€should€not€beÐ $X" Ðallowed€to€take€advantage€of€the€road€project€timing€to€make€money€at€the€City's€expense.€WithÐ ô$D # Ðrespect€to€this€argument€we€agree€with€and€adopt€the€following€language€from€the€judgment€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐTrial€Court:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒThere€was€an€issue€raised€as€to€whether€the€defendants€planned€a€futureÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdevelopment€of€the€property,€which€would€have€resulted€in€restricted€access€toÐ )à$( Ðcomply€with€current€restrictions€even€if€the€highway€project€and€condemnationÐ |*Ì%) Ðhad€not€taken€place.€€This€is€irrelevant,€as€the€Court€must€consider€the€property€asÐ h+¸&* Ðit€existed€at€the€time€of€taking.€Owners€of€property€have€choices€for€futureÐ ° Ðdevelopment,€but€condemnation€by€a€taking€authority€results€in€an€involuntaryÐ œì Ðimposition€of€restricted€land€use€upon€the€property€owner,€regardless€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðowners'€plans,€options,€and€choices.Ð tÄ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÐ L œ Ðremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary€and€for€collection€of€the€judgment€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðcosts€below.€€Costs€of€€appeal€are€adjudged€against€the€City€of€Sevierville€and€its€surety.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ À  ÐÔ#†¼[%»XXÙý>#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼[%Ô