ÿWPCB ÙUQޱ‡%k"ïz’ú¡ÿgôƒ5DžÍ‰H9kzoÄõ¢›ðÊ’¡§úŠþÁýÏø½ß¿‰Åì“üW ³—Ì>ë2¯HîŒäÂÍ~^¹í…#É¿e¨EzÏU†ÙŠ›Ä倕dÓk÷«DÔƒ<+g#b‰4yWñTôa:b¡·íƒ,3ÃìqàSõ+p|¨j,T@\Ç‚ÊÇðg@Aü'#ß™ù”‡ {@´}övÕU#KZ”í+פl®¨Ï³³Ä&,`\ÃFÊC÷t]j rJ6YÑwŠoq"xùáhL³ƒr J:/õ6eY쇽Ю߱âÖˆ=´*›é¸®®…òpº ÆG€,q|MÚ.téÞoëå`Oà/™2ËSp®Î {<‡O .V13¥ÝU¡f9¿Ô>–ôÂúñÂ×[Ú×I± ЦÊ^ök'Ù"Ÿ2ÀHDCå`ªñÃã”åk/(ÀàÒ{¢vÚ4IýƒŒjÀ|…¥g¹ÿ57[ÞË~J§Æ{–‰¿.±÷KIÕü4šã•=XÓ³¨)$~k›ê÷.7ˆá1›üÔ“?ê­¢Ž¡lTî³éz¸]b:Éú­ÉiFkÐ;š³qTÊ›b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ ‚™ Æ Æá ƧÆmmN333E555555555555555555555555b777777777777777777777777777777777777 0ë???? B** 0¤G D3ë D- 0KKK AS–Æé 0¤¯ 0DS A«—»é€_/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular²p)/ê: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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 LOUDONMatlockTowne ArpSterchiHumphreys TWMLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2z˜$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»Ô d(|3?ˆ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?ˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^µ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼^µ»»»ÔÑ8€qXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îX\^µÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼^µ»îîX\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€1,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔÌò òÔ#†¼^µ»XXqñ#ÔTENNESSEE€WASTE€MOVERS,€INC.òòóó€v.€LOUDON€COUNTY,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XqX»¼^µÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Loudon€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€10100€€€€€€Frank€V.€Williams,€III,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌFiled€October€30,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02490„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓTennessee€Waste€Movers,€Inc.€(ð ðTWMðð)€filed€an€application€with€the€Loudon€County€CommissionÐ xÈ  Ð(ð ðthe€Commissionðð)Ô#†¼^µ»XXqx#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔ€seeking€to€expand€an€existing€landfill€in€the€county.€€The€application€was€filedÐ d´ Ðpursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„701,€òòet€seq.óó,€popularly€known€as€theÐ P  Ðð ðJackson€Law.ððòò€€óóFollowing€a€hearing,€the€Commission€denied€Ô_ÔTWMÔ_Ôððs€application.€€TWM€thenÐ <Œ Ðpetitioned€the€Loudon€County€Chancery€Court€for€òòóójudicial€review.€€At€the€conclusion€of€a€two„dayÐ (x Ðbench€trial,€the€court€held€in€favor€of€the€Commissionððs€ruling.€€Consequently,€it€dismissed€Ô_ÔTWMÔ_ÔððsÐ d Ðpetition.€€On€appeal,€TWM€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€interpretation€of€the€meaning€of€òòdeÐ P Ðnovoóó€review€as€that€concept€is€found€in€the€Jackson€Law€and€that€both€the€Commission€and€the€trialÐ ì< Ðcourt€failed€to€properly€consider€the€criteria€set€forth€in€the€Jackson€Law.€€If€successful€on€appeal,Ð Ø( ÐTWM€seeks€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€litigation€costs.€€We€affirm.Ð Ä ÐÓÔÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ œì ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^µ»àXq‘#ÔÔ‡XqX.¼^µÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_ÔÔ#†¼^µ»àXqä #ÔÔ‡XqX.¼^µÔ,€óóandÔ#†¼^µ»XXqá #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔòò€Herschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€òòóójoined.òòóóÔ#†¼^µ»XXq+ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔÐ L œ ÐÌJ.€Polk€Cooley,€Rockwood,€Tennessee,€and€Michael€D.€Ô_ÔPearigenÔ_Ô€and€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBrundigeÔ_Ô,€Nashville,Ð $"t! ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tennessee€Waste€Movers,€Inc.Ð #`" ÐÌHarvey€L.€Ô_ÔSproulÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLenoirÔ_Ô€City,€Tennessee,€and€E.€H.€Ô_ÔRaysonÔ_Ô€and€Penny€A.€Ô_ÔArningÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,Ð è$8 $ ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Loudon€County€and€Loudon€County€Commission.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓµ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^µ»XXqŸ #ÔÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼^µ»XXqh#ÔÔ‡XqX»¼^µÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ô#†¼^µ»XXqÆ#ÔÔ€XqX»¼^µÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÓñÓà  àTWM€owns€and€operates€a€construction€and€demolition€debris€landfill€in€Loudon€County.€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âThe€operator€of€such€a€landfill€is€prohibited€from€accepting€hazardous€or€sanitary€waste.€€However,Ð H,˜',ý ÐÔ_ÔTWM€has€been€granted€special€authorization€to€receive€asbestos„containing€material€and€hot€ashÐ ° Ðfrom€the€Kimberly€Clark€plant€in€Loudon€County.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€landfill€operation€is€situated€on€approximately€eleven€acres€within€the€Matlock€BendÐ tÄ ÐIndustrial€Park.€€The€landfill€itself€takes€up€five€of€these€acres.€€By€the€middle€of€2001,€the€landfillÐ `° Ðwas€operating€at€80%€capacity,€with€a€projected€life€of€only€two€years.€€In€July,€2001,€TWM€filedÐ L œ Ðan€application€with€the€Commission,€requesting€permission€to€horizontally€expand€the€existingÐ 8 ˆ Ðlandfill.€€The€requested€expansion€would€increase€the€existing€site€by€twelve€acres,€withÐ $ t Ðapproximately€7.7€additional€acres€being€dedicated€to€the€landfill;€and€would€extend€the€life€of€theÐ  ` Ðlandfill€by€ten€years.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€its€initial€application,€as€well€as€in€two€supplements,€TWM€addressed€the€statutorily„Ð Ô$  Ðmandated€criteria€found€in€the€Jackson€Law,€criteria€that€must€be€utilized€when€considering€anÐ À  Ðapplication€under€this€statutory€scheme.€€TWM€expounded€upon€the€type€of€waste€the€landfillÐ ¬ü  Ðreceives;€the€method€of€waste€disposal;€the€minimal€amount€of€odor€and€noise€generated€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðlandfill;€the€lack€of€a€significant€increase€in€traffic€as€a€result€of€the€proposed€expansion;€and€theÐ „Ô  Ðlandfillððs€compatibility€with€existing€development€and€zoning€plans.€€With€respect€to€the€projectedÐ pÀ Ðimpact€the€landfill€expansion€would€have€on€property€values€in€the€surrounding€area,€TWM€suppliedÐ \¬ Ðthe€Commission€with€a€market€analysis€study,€which€was€prepared€by€two€state„certified€general€realÐ H˜ Ðestate€appraisers.€€The€study€concluded€that€ð ð[p]roperty€values€appear€to€be€stable€within€the€subjectÐ 4„ Ðproperty€neighborhood.ðð€€Further,€the€preliminary€findings€of€the€study€indicated€that€ð ðthe€proposedÐ  p Ðexpansion€of€the€landfill€will€have€no€detrimental€impact€on€the€market€value€of€properties€in€theÐ  \ Ðsubject€property€neighborhood.ðð€€As€to€the€economic€impact€that€the€expansion€would€have€onÐ øH ÐLoudon€County,€TWM€submitted€that€the€landfill€expansion€would€annually€net€the€county€overÐ ä4 Ð$13,000€in€real€estate€taxes,€as€well€as€$16,000€in€personal€property€taxes.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€September€13,€2001,€a€public€hearing€was€held€before€the€Commission,€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€68„211„703€(2001).€€The€hearing€gave€TWM€an€opportunity€to€present€their€plan€forÐ ”ä Ðthe€proposed€expansion€and€allowed€commissioners€and€other€interested€citizens€to€voice€theirÐ €Ð Ðopinions€and€concerns.€€Attorney€Coulter€(Bud)€Gilbert€spoke€on€behalf€of€TWM,€covering€each€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€eight€criteria€under€the€Jackson€Law.€€Following€Gilbertððs€presentation,€several€citizensÐ X ¨ Ðaddressed€the€Commission.€€Among€those€addressing€the€Commission€was€John€Thornton,€aÐ D!” ÐChattanooga€resident€who,€just€eight€months€prior,€had€purchased€1300€acres€of€land€in€MatlockÐ 0"€  ÐBend€for€$9,250,000.€€Thornton€planned€to€use€the€property€for€the€development€of€an€upscaleÐ #l! Ðresidential€and€golf€community€called€Thunder€Bend.€€Thunder€Bend€would€be€bounded€by€theÐ $X" ÐTennessee€River€on€one€side,€and€partially€bounded€by€the€industrial€area€of€Matlock€Bend,€homeÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€landfill€and€its€proposed€expansion.€€At€the€hearing,€Thornton€spoke€of€his€concern€over€theÐ à%0!$ Ðnegative€impact€that€the€expansion€would€have€on€property€values€and€the€success€of€Thunder€Bend.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThornton€also€stated€that€his€development€was€projected€to€double€ð ðthe€entire€county€revenue€inÐ ¸'#& Ðtaxesðð€and€ð ðquadruple€[the€City€of€Loudonððs]€tax€base.ðð€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Commission€convened€for€its€regular€meeting€on€October€1,€2001.€€At€this€meeting,Ð |*Ì%) ÐTWM€again€presented€its€plans€for,€and€the€potential€effect€of,€the€planned€expansion.€€Thornton€alsoÐ h+¸&* Ðoffered€his€remarks€in€opposition€to€the€expansion,€citing€the€adverse€impact€the€expansion€wouldÐ ° Ðhave€on€property€values€and€the€local€economy:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnd€will€it€have€an€economic€impact?€€Well,€I€think€all€of€youÐ tÄ Ðcommissioners€are€aware€of€the€economic€impact€that€[ThunderÐ `° ÐBend]€would€have.€€It€would€double€the€countyððs€tax€base,€quadrupleÐ L œ Ðthe€cityððs€tax€base.€€It€would€employ€literally€thousands€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðconstruction€workers,€consultants,€and€different€people€with€the€half„Ð $ t Ða„billion„dollar€investment€that€would€ultimately€end€up€in€MatlockÐ  ` ÐBend€over€a€10„year€period.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð Ô$  ÐÓÝ%ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBut€I€do€think,€quite€honestly,€it€will€have€a€negative€impact€onÐ ¬ü  Ðproperty€values,€and€I€think€it€will€have€a€catastrophic€economicÐ ˜è  Ðimpact€on€this€county€if€it€results€in€us€not€being€able€to€complete€theÐ „Ô  Ðdevelopment€and€get€it€ð!ð€get€it€going.€€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌLicensed€realtor€and€local€resident€Ted€Lynn€spoke€of€the€problems€he€perceived€with€the€landfillÐ H˜ Ðexpansion:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMr.€Thornton€is€going€to€have€a€job€on€his€hands€with€marketing€ifÐ  \ Ðwe€cannot€isolate€the€landfill€the€best€way€possible.€€I€just€donððt€seeÐ øH Ðthat€itððs€in€any€interest€at€all€of€the€county€at€this€time€to€expand€orÐ ä4 Ðstart€a€new€landfill€in€here.€€Itððs€just€not€good€business.€€Thereððs€a€lotÐ Ð  Ðof€money€to€come€in€off€the€Thornton€development.м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNot€only€on€this€1300€acres,€but€the€whole€end€of€the€county€will€reapÐ ”ä Ðthe€benefits€from€it.€€The€entire€county€will€reap€the€benefits€for€theÐ €Ð Ðprojected€numbers€on€the€taxes.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌÌOther€Loudon€County€citizens€and€several€commissioners€expressed€their€several€views€regardingÐ 0"€  ÐTWMððs€application.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€meeting,€the€Commission,€by€a€vote€of€6€to€3,€deniedÐ #l! ÐTWMððs€application.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àOn€November€28,€2001,€TWM€filed€a€petition€for€òòde€novo€óóreview€with€the€trial€court.€€ThatÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€conducted€a€two„day€bench€trial€in€August,€2002.€€In€addition€to€considering€the€record€fromÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€Commission€hearings,€the€trial€court€heard€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses.€€Carl€Towne,Ð ¸'#& ÐTWMððs€district€manager€for€East€Tennessee,€initially€stated€that€he€did€not€think€the€expansionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwould€have€any€impact€on€Thunder€Bend.€€However,€on€cross€examination,€Towne€admitted€that€theÐ )à$( Ðsubdivision€should€enlarge€the€countyððs€tax€base€and€questioned€why€anybody€would€develop€anÐ |*Ì%) Ðupscale€community€or€buy€a€house€on€property€adjacent€to€a€Class€4€landfill.€€Doyle€Arp,€the€LoudonÐ h+¸&* ÐCounty€tax€assessor,€testified€that€the€calculations€in€his€office€gave€no€indication€that€the€landfillÐ ° Ðhad€negatively€impacted€property€values.€€He€tempered€this€assertion€by€noting€that€his€officeÐ œì Ðð ðdeal[s]€with€history,€not€with€projections,ðð€so€he€could€not€express€an€opinion€on€the€impact€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€landfill€expansion€might€have€on€property€values€in€the€future.€€When€questioned€on€crossÐ tÄ Ðexamination€regarding€the€impact€Thunder€Bend€potentially€could€have€on€the€countyððs€tax€revenuesÐ `° Ðif€it€was€successfully€developed,€Arp€responded€that€the€impact€would€be€ð ðastronomical.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àTWM€called€Randy€Button,€a€certified€real€estate€appraiser,€as€an€expert€witness.€€Button,Ð $ t Ðwho€had€collaborated€on€the€market€study€analysis€which€indicated€that€property€values€were€stableÐ  ` Ðand€that€the€expansion€would€not€negatively€impact€those€values,€admitted€on€cross€examination€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€property€values€he€had€assessed€as€stable€were€primarily€older,€modest€homes.€€He€also€concededÐ è 8  Ðthat,€in€making€his€analysis,€he€had€not€taken€the€Thunder€Bend€development€into€consideration,Ð Ô$  Ðstating€that€he€ð ðwas€never€asked€to€do€that.ðð€€Rather,€he€was€ð ðasked€to€submit€an€overall€generalÐ À  Ðimpact€on€the€neighborhood.ðð€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àHop€Bailey,€a€realtor€and€real€estate€appraiser€who€has€been€in€practice€for€55€years,€testifiedÐ „Ô  Ðas€an€expert€for€the€Commission.€€Bailey€stated€that€the€landfill€expansion,€along€with€the€otherÐ pÀ Ðlandfill€and€plants€in€the€area,€would€have€a€negative€impact€on€Thunder€Bend.€€When€asked€on€crossÐ \¬ Ðexamination€why€the€expansion€would€be€any€more€of€a€problem€than€the€nearby€sanitary„wasteÐ H˜ Ðlandfill€or€the€mushroom€plant,€Bailey€responded€that€the€expansion€was€ð ðjust€an€additionðð€to€theÐ 4„ Ðproblem.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Commission€also€called€George€Archer,€a€Knoxville€real€estate€broker,€as€a€witness.€€HeÐ øH Ðstated€the€following€with€respect€to€the€impact€that€the€proposed€expansion€would€have€on€ThunderÐ ä4 ÐBend:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHere€again,€one€of€the€main€issues€is€perception€and€not€reality.€€AndÐ ¨ø Ðthatððs€one€of€the€biggest€factors€that€I€think€Mr.€Thornton€would€haveÐ ”ä Ðto€consider€in€his€overall€scheme€of€things€and€the€impact€of€whatÐ €Ð Ðweððre€talking€about€is€that,€you€know,€just€dealing€with€the€public€andÐ l¼ Ðtrying€to€make€sure€that€they€are€comfortable€with€the€fact€that€eitherÐ X ¨ Ðlandfill€would€be€a€potential€either€environmental€or€some€source€ofÐ D!” Ðnegative€impact€on€their€investment.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌBob€Sterchi,€a€Matlock€Bend€resident€and€real€estate€developer,€testified€that,€based€upon€hisÐ $X" Ðexperience€in€real€estate,€the€landfill€expansion€ð ðwould€be€detrimentalðð€to€both€investors€andÐ ô$D # Ðpurchasers€in€Thunder€Bend.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€court€issued€its€ruling€from€the€bench,€finding€in€a€favorableÐ ¸'#& Ðfashion€òòvis„a„visóó€the€Commissionððs€decision.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings,€in€pertinent€part,€are€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfollows:Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð ° ÐÓÙ=ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€number€of€reasons€have€been€cited€by€the€[Commission]€in€supportÐ ˆØ Ðof€its€decision€to€deny€the€expansion,€but€the€principle€[sic]€reasonÐ tÄ Ðgiven€by€the€[Commission]€and€the€focus€of€most€of€the€evidence,€atÐ `° Ðleast€during€the€trial,€is€the€possibility€that€the€expansion€of€theÐ L œ Ðlandfill€could€harm€the€development€of€an€adjoining€thirteen€hundredÐ 8 ˆ Ðacre€tract€of€land€purchased€by€John€Thornton€along€Watts€Bar€Lake.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð ü L  ÐÓN@ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis,€as€previously€noted,€is€a€de€novo€review€of€the€[Commissionððs]Ð Ô$  Ðdenial€of€the€proposed€expansion.€€At€issue€in€the€case€is€theÐ À  Ðapplication€of€the€Jackson€Law,€codified€in€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð]€68„Ð ¬ü  Ð211„704(b),€which€lists€statutorily€mandated€criteria€which€must€beÐ ˜è  Ðconsidered€in€granting€or€denying€a€request€to€expand€an€existingÐ „Ô  Ðlandfill.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€fact€that€this€is€a€de€novo€review€simply€means€that€the€decisionÐ H˜ Ðof€the€[Commission]€does€not€carry€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€AllÐ 4„ Ðrelevant€evidence€must€be€considered€by€the€Court,€but€the€task€hereÐ  p Ðis€simply€to€determine€from€all€of€the€evidence€whether€or€not€thereÐ  \ Ðis€substantial€or€material€evidence€related€to€the€eight€criteria€set€outÐ øH Ðin€the€Jackson€Law€to€support€the€denial€of€[TWMððs]€proposedÐ ä4 Ðexpansion.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€substantial€or€material€evidence€exists€to€justify€the€denial,€then€theÐ ¨ø Ð[Commission]€cannot€be€said€to€have€acted€arbitrarily€or€capriciously.€Ð ”ä ÐEven€though€the€record€from€below€is€being€considered,€it€is€true,€asÐ €Ð Ð[TWM]€argues,€that€some€of€the€statements€attributed€to€the€membersÐ l¼ Ðof€the€[Commission]€may€not€have€been€related€to€factors€which€mayÐ X ¨ Ðproperly€be€considered€under€the€Jackson€Law.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAccordingly,€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€this€proceeding€willÐ #l! Ðbe€determined€to€the€exclusion€of€any€improper€factors€orÐ $X" Ðconsiderations€which€may€appear€in€the€record€from€below.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnd€before€I€go€into€the€reasons€for€this,€first€let€me€say€that€if€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðmatter€was€before€me€for€the€purpose€of€making€a€personal€decisionÐ ¸'#& Ðas€to€whether€or€not€the€expansion€should€be€allowed,€I€would€findÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€[TWM].€€Much€of€the€testimony€has€been€related€to€the€lack€ofÐ )à$( Ðvisibility€of€the€landfill€and€the€area€to€be€expanded€from€both€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðresidential€development€and€the€proposed€road.€€In€this€regard,€theÐ h+¸&* Ðlandfill€would€not€be€visible€from€the€residential€developmentÐ ° Ðbecause€of€a€high€ridge€which€essentially€separates€the€residential€areaÐ œì Ðfrom€the€industrial€park.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€purchasers€of€homesites€in€the€planned€development€wouldÐ `° Ðalmost€certainly€be€constrained€to€pass€through€the€industrial€park€toÐ L œ Ðgain€access€to€their€property€and€in€the€process€of€the€ingress€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðegress,€residents€and€potential€buyers€would€have€to€pass€by€theÐ $ t Ðlandfill.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€purchaserððs€proposed€landfill€produces€no€offensive€odors€exceptÐ è 8  Ðfor€several€fires€in€the€landfill€caused€by€the€dumping€of€hot€ash€soÐ Ô$  Ðthis€is€almost€completely€a€case€in€which€the€visual€impact€of€theÐ À  Ðlandfill€and€the€knowledge€of€its€close€location€to€the€developmentÐ ¬ü  Ðcould€create€in€the€minds€of€potential€homeowners€a€negativeÐ ˜è  Ðperception€of€the€development€and€hurt€land€sales€and€potentialÐ „Ô  Ðproperty€values.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  ààHàˆà8` Ð Ð àBut€even€this€could€be€mitigated.€€The€grade€of€the€road€whichÐ H˜ ÐThornton€proposes€has€not€yet€been€established€so€that€[it€is]€not€clearÐ 4„ Ðwhat€part,€if€any,€of€the€landfill€would€be€visible.€€Moreover,Ð  p Ðsufficient€space€appears€to€exist€along€the€proposed€road€to€permit€theÐ  \ Ðdeveloper€to€place€screens€or€vegetation€to€prevent€residents€fromÐ øH Ðseeing€the€landfill€as€they€come€and€go.€€So€there€appears€to€beÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€solutions€to€most€of€the€problems€posed€by€the€landfill.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMoreover,€the€problems€presented€by€[TWMððs]€landfill€as€it€presentlyÐ ¨ø Ðexists€is,€in€relative€terms,€less€than€problems€posed€by€other€existingÐ ”ä Ðoperations€in€the€industrial€park.€€Monterey€Mushrooms,€for€example,Ð €Ð Ðwhich€will€adjoin€the€road,€grows€mushrooms€using€organic€materialÐ l¼ Ðwhich€produces€a€foul€odor€which€can€be€detected€at€some€distanceÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€their€property€depending€on€the€prevailing€winds.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlso€Loudon€County€operates€a€sanitary€landfill€just€past€MontereyÐ #l! ÐMushrooms,€also€in€the€industrial€park€and€that€landfill,€unlikeÐ $X" Ð[TWMððs]€landfill,€accepts€household€garbage€which€also€produces€anÐ ô$D # Ðodor.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSo€it€just€seems€reasonable€that€the€problems€of€the€proposedÐ ¸'#& Ðexpansion€could€be€dealt€with€in€ways€that€could€both€accommodateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€expansion€of€the€landfill€and€which€would€minimize€the€impactÐ )à$( Ðto€the€residential€development€in€terms€of€property€values€and€taxÐ |*Ì%) Ðrevenues€to€the€county.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€the€final€analysis,€it€is€the€reasonableness€or€unreasonableness€ofÐ ° Ðopinions€expressed€in€the€trial€of€the€lawsuit€which€will€determine€theÐ œì Ðoutcome,€for€those€opinions€all€relate€to€the€potential€for€futureÐ ˆØ Ðconsequences€to€the€county€regardless€of€whether€[TWMððs]Ð tÄ Ðapplication€is€approved€or€rejected€it€will€never€be€possible€to€knowÐ `° Ðfor€certain€what€results€the€opposite€decision€would€have€produced.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€the€landfill€is€allowed€to€expand,€we€can€never€know€what€theÐ $ t Ðresidential€property€values€and€tax€revenues€would€have€been€had€theÐ  ` Ðlandfill€not€expanded€and€vice€versa.€€And€this€should€not€beÐ ü L  Ðinterpreted€to€mean€that€the€Court€is€bound€by€the€testimony€of€anyÐ è 8  Ðexpert.€€Expert€opinion€is€to€be€weighed€with€great€caution€and€inÐ Ô$  Ðlight€of€all€of€the€facts.€€Nor€is€the€Court€bound€by€the€testimony€ofÐ À  Ðthe€greater€number€of€witnesses.€€But€it€is€the€reasonableness€orÐ ¬ü  Ðunreasonableness€[of]€testimony€of€the€experts€which€the€Court€mustÐ ˜è  Ðconsider€and€even€[TWMððs]€own€experts€concede€that€reasonableÐ „Ô  Ðpeople€could€reach€the€conclusion€that€expansion€of€the€landfill€couldÐ pÀ Ðnegatively€impact€the€residential€area€and€its€property€values€asÐ \¬ Ðcontemplated€by€subsection€3€and€4€of€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð]€68„211„Ð H˜ Ð704(b).Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€is€one€of€the€reasons€why€the€Courts€must€acknowledge€andÐ  \ Ðdefer€to€the€decisions€made€by€the€legislative€branch,€provided€thatÐ øH Ðthose€decisions€are€made€within€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€TheÐ ä4 ÐCourt€cannot€substitute€its€judgment€for€the€lawful,€reasonable€andÐ Ð  Ðrational€judgment€of€commission€members€elected€by€the€people€ofÐ ¼  ÐLoudon€County.Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBy€giving€the€[Commission]€the€choice€to€approve€or€disapproveÐ €Ð Ðlandfills€and€by€setting€out€the€criteria€by€which€that€is€accomplished,Ð l¼ Ðthe€[Commission]€has€some€flexibility€in€deciding€which€uses€areÐ X ¨ Ðdetrimental€to€other€uses€the€[Commission]€wants€to€promote.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMoreover,€it€is€not€necessary€for€the€[Commission]€to€show€that€aÐ #l! Ðmajority€of€the€eight€factors€support€the€[Commissionððs]€decision.€Ð $X" ÐSubstantial€and€material€evidence€supporting€even€one€of€the€eightÐ ô$D # Ðfactors€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€[Commissionððs]€denial€of€[TWMððs]Ð à%0!$ Ðapplication€to€expand€their€operations.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÓcÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€this€case€.€.€.€we€have€the€testimony€of€experts€dealing€with€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðstatutory€issues.€€And€the€quality€and€factual€predicates€of€thoseÐ h+¸&* Ðopinions€are€similar€for€both€[TWM]€and€[the€Commission];€in€otherÐ ° Ðwords,€if€the€[Commission]€cannot€rely€on€the€strength€of€their€ownÐ œì Ðexperts€who€are€similar€in€training€and€experience€to€the€expertsÐ ˆØ Ðprovided€by€[TWM]€to€prove€their€case,€then€it€would€seem€to€beÐ tÄ Ðalmost€a€hopeless€situation€for€the€[Commission]€in€attempting€toÐ `° Ðdeny€an€expansion€of€a€landfill€ð!ð€at€least€for€these€statutory€reasons.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSo€as€I€see€it,€I€think€itððs€a€matter€of€ð!ð€given€the€testimony€here,€theÐ $ t Ðexpert€testimony€with€regard€to€the€potential€harm€to€the€surroundingÐ  ` Ðarea€from€the€operations€of€[TWMððs]€landfill€and€the€projectedÐ ü L  Ðimpact€on€property€values€in€the€residential€area,€the€Court€is€findingÐ è 8  Ðfor€the€[Commission],€and€in€this€case,€itððs€a€legislative€decision,€andÐ Ô$  ÐIððm€not€inclined€to€jump€in€and€start€substituting€my€personal€opinionÐ À  Ðfor€the€opinion€of€the€[Commission]€simply€because€had€I€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðpersonally€judging€those€facts,€I€would€have€found€in€favor€ofÐ ˜è  Ð[TWM].Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà  àFrom€this€judgment,€TWM€appeals.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓžiÓà  àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below;€butÐ  \ Ðthe€record€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinationsÐ øH Ðthat€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€ò òòòWrightÐ ä4 Ðv.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonó óóó,€854Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€Our€review€of€questions€of€law€is€òòde€novo€óówith€no€such€presumptionÐ ¼  Ðof€correctness€attaching€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.ó óóó,€919Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòPresley€v.€Bennettó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓJmÓà  àOur€analysis€of€the€issues€in€the€instant€case€causes€us€to€focus€on€the€following€relevantÐ D!” Ðstatutory€provisions:Ð 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð àòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„701€(2001)Ð $X" ÐÌÓ'nÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àóóNo€construction€shall€be€initiated€for€any€new€landfill€for€solid€wasteÐ à%0!$ Ðdisposal€or€for€solid€waste€processing€until€the€plans€for€such€newÐ Ì&"% Ðlandfill€have€been€submitted€to€and€approved€by:и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€county€legislative€body€in€which€the€proposed€landfill€isÐ )à$( Ðlocated,€if€such€new€construction€is€located€in€an€unincorporated€area;€Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð ° ÐÌòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704€(2001)Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÓ»pÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Within€thirty€(30)€days€after€notice€and€an€opportunity€for€a€publicÐ `° Ðhearing€as€provided€in€ðð€68„211„703,€the€county€legislative€body,€theÐ L œ Ðmunicipal€governing€body€or€both€such€entities€shall€approve€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðdisapprove€the€proposed€new€construction€for€solid€waste€disposal€byÐ $ t Ðlandfilling€or€solid€waste€processing€by€landfilling.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€The€following€criteria€shall€be€considered€in€evaluating€suchÐ è 8  Ðconstruction:ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€type€of€waste€to€be€disposed€of€at€the€landfill;Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€The€method€of€disposal€to€be€used€at€the€landfill;Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€The€projected€impact€on€surrounding€areas€from€noise€and€odorÐ \¬ Ðcreated€by€the€proposed€landfill;ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€The€projected€impact€on€property€values€on€surrounding€areasÐ  p Ðcreated€by€the€proposed€landfill;€Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€The€adequacy€of€existing€roads€and€bridges€to€carry€the€increasedÐ ä4 Ðtraffic€projected€to€result€from€the€proposed€landfill;ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€The€economic€impact€on€the€county,€city€or€both;Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)€The€compatibility€with€existing€development€or€zoning€plans;€andЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)€Any€other€factor€which€may€affect€the€public€health,€safety€orÐ X ¨ Ðwelfare.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€Judicial€review€of€the€legislative€bodyððs€determination€shall€be€aÐ #l! Ðde€novo€review€before€the€chancery€court€for€the€county€in€which€theÐ $X" Ðlandfill€is€proposed€to€be€located.òòÐô$D #` x` x ÐóóÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌA.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ·yÓà  àTWM€presents€three€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€TWM€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€itsÐ |*Ì%) Ðinterpretation€of€the€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review€required€by€the€Jackson€Law.€€Second,€TWM€arguesÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€upholding€the€Commissionððs€denial€of€the€application€because,€so€theÐ ° Ðargument€goes,€the€Commissionððs€decision€was€not€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€Ð œì ÐThird,€TWM€contends€that,€if€successful€on€appeal,€it€is€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€and€litigationÐ ˆØ Ðcosts.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ…|Óà  àUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(c),€judicial€review€of€the€Commissionððs€denial€ofÐ $ t ÐTWMððs€application€for€expansion€is€a€ð ðde€novo€reviewðð€before€the€Loudon€County€Chancery€Court.€Ð  ` ÐTWM€argues€that€the€chancery€court€improperly€applied€this€standard€of€òòde€novo€óóreview.€Ð ü L  ÐSpecifically,€TWM€takes€issue€with€the€assumption€embodied€in€the€Chancellorððs€statement€that€ifÐ è 8  Ðthe€case€was€before€him€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€making€a€personal€decision€as€to€whether€or€not€theÐ Ô$  Ðexpansion€should€be€allowed,ðð€he€would€have€found€for€TWM.€€TWM€asserts€that€òòde€novo€óóreviewÐ À  Ðòòrequiresóó€the€trial€court€to€òòóósubstitute€its€independent€judgment€for€that€of€the€Commission€andÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðreconsider€and€redetermine€both€the€facts€and€the€law€from€all€the€evidence€as€if€no€suchÐ ˜è  Ðdetermination€had€been€previously€made.ðð€€ò òòòStephens€v.€Roane€State€Cmty.€Coll.ó óóó,€No.€M1998„00125„Ð „Ô  ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€192577,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€February€18,€2000)€(quotingÐ pÀ Ðò òòòCooper€v.€Alcohol€Commððn€of€the€City€of€Memphisó óóó,€745€S.W.2d€278,€281€(Tenn.€1988)).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€TWM€advances€the€position€that€the€court€improperly€applied€the€common€lawÐ 4„ Ðwrit€of€certiorari€standard€of€review,€rather€than€the€statutory€writ€of€certiorari.€€Under€the€commonÐ  p Ðlaw€writ€of€certiorari€standard,€the€trial€court€reviews€the€record€of€the€administrative€proceedingsÐ  \ Ðto€determine€whether€any€material€evidence€exists€to€support€the€administrative€decision.€€òòSeeò òÐ øH ÐCooper€v.€Williamson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.ó óóó,€746€S.W.2d€176,€179€(Tenn.€1987)€(quoting€ò òòòDavisonÐ ä4 Ðv.€Carró óóó,€659€S.W.2d€361,€363€(Tenn.€1983)).€€The€court€can,€however,€consider€new€evidence€inÐ Ð  Ðorder€to€determine€whether€the€administrative€board€ð ðððexceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,Ð ¼  Ðcapriciously€or€arbitrarily.ðððð€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóBy€contrast,€the€statutory€writ€of€certiorari€ð ðmay€provide€for€someÐ ¨ø Ðform€of€a€trial€òòde€novoóó.ðð€€ò òòòCooperó óóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€179.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€meaning€of€ððtrial€de€novoðð€in€each€statute€is€obviously€dictatedÐ l¼ Ðby€the€wording€and€context€of€the€statute€in€which€it€appears€and€byÐ X ¨ Ðthe€nature€of€the€administrative€body,€decision€and€procedure€beingÐ D!” Ð[reviewed].ððÐ0"€ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòCooperó óóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€179€(quoting€ò òòòPledger€v.€Coxó óóó,€626€P.2d€415,€416„17€(Utah€1981)).€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àTWM€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€€the€facts€in€light€of€the€ð ðsubstantial€andÐ à%0!$ Ðmaterial€evidenceðð€rule€and€its€determination€that€the€Commission€acted€ð ðarbitrarily€or€capriciouslyððÐ Ì&"% Ðwere€improper,€as€the€Jackson€Lawððs€mandate€of€òòde€novoóóreview€is,€according€to€TWM,€clearly€aÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðspecies€of€the€statutory€writ€of€certiorari.ðð€€ò òòòCooperó óóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€179.€€In€support€of€theseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpositions,€TWM€relies€heavily€upon€the€ò òòòCooperó óóó€case,€which€involved€the€Teacher€Tenure€Act.€€SuchÐ )à$( Ðreliance€is€misplaced.€€The€case€of€ò òòòTucker€v.€Humphreys€Countyó óóó,€944€S.W.2d€613€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1996),€is€the€only€appellate€case€that€has€addressed€the€issue€of€òòde€novoóó€review€in€the€context€of€theÐ h+¸&* ÐJackson€Law.€€Accordingly,€the€doctrine€of€òòstare€decisisóó€and€the€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€clearly€make€the€ò òòòTucker€ó óóódecision€pertinent€to€the€issue€now€under€consideration.€€Tenn.€Sup.Ð œì ÐCt.€R.€4(H)(2)€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOpinions€reported€in€the€official€reporter€.€.€.€shall€be€consideredÐ `° Ðcontrolling€authority€for€all€purposes€unless€and€until€such€opinion€isÐ L œ Ðreversed€or€modified€by€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌHaving€said€this,€we€recognize€our€statutory€authority€to€revisit€the€correctness€of€the€ò òòòTuckeró óóó€case.€Ð  ` ÐÌÌà  àIn€ò òòòTuckeró óóó,€the€plaintiffs€submitted€to€the€Humphreys€County€Board€of€Commissioners€anÐ Ô$  Ðapplication€for€a€proposed€landfill.€€ò òòòId.ó ó€óóat€615.€€At€the€conclusion€of€a€hearing€on€the€matter,€theÐ À  Ðboard€voted€to€reject€the€plaintiffsðð€application.€€ò òòòId.ó ó€óóat€616.€€The€plaintiffs€then€sought€a€òòde€novoóóÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€with€the€chancery€court,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(c).€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€chanceryÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€initially€issued€an€order€stating€that€it€would€ð ðconduct€a€completely€new€hearing,ðð€allowingÐ „Ô  Ðeach€party€to€present€witness€testimony€and€other€material€evidence,€and€ð ðthe€Court€will€render€itsÐ pÀ Ðdecision€based€upon€the€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Upon€a€motion€to€reconsider,€theÐ \¬ Ðcourt€ordered€the€following:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€holds€that€the€method€of€judicial€review€prescribed€by€theÐ  p ÐJackson€law€shall€be€by€Common€Law€Writ€of€Certiorari€on€theÐ  \ Ðrecord€produced€from€the€Joint€Public€Hearing€and€Meeting€of€theÐ øH ÐHumphrey€County€Commission€held€on€May€11,€1993€to€determineÐ ä4 Ðwhether€or€not€the€Humphreys€County€Commission€acted€illegally€orÐ Ð  Ðbeyond€the€scope€of€its€authority.м ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.€€ó óóóAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€before€the€trial€court,€the€court€found€that€the€countyÐ ”ä Ðcommission€ð ðdid€not€act€illegally,€arbitrarily€or€capriciouslyðð€in€denying€the€plaintiffððs€applicationÐ €Ð Ðto€construct€a€landfill,€and€that€ð ðthere€is€sufficient€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€supportðð€theÐ l¼ Ðcommissionððs€decision.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€617.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€plaintiffs€argued€that€òòde€novoóó€review,€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 0"€  Ððð€68„211„704(c),€ð ðimplies€a€broader€review,€involving€a€new€trial€before€the€Court€of€all€issuesÐ #l! Ðpresented€to€the€Board.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€619.€€This€court€began€its€analysis€by€noting€that€òòde€novoóó€has€aÐ $X" Ðvariety€of€different€meanings:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAn€appeal€from€General€Sessions€Court€to€Circuit€Court€involves€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcomplete€new€trial€of€the€issues€without€reference€to€evidenceÐ ¸'#& Ðintroduced€in€General€Sessions€Court€unless€re„introduced€on€appeal.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐApparently€plaintiffs[]€desire€such€a€review.€€To€grant€such€a€judicialÐ )à$( Ðâ âreview€in€the€present€case€would€substitute€the€discretion€of€the€courtsÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€that€of€the€County€Commissioners,€òòwhich€is€clearly€not€theÐ ° Ðlegislative€intentóó.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌò òòòId.€ó óóó(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€in€ò òòòTuckeró óóó€asserted€that€the€trial€court€should€have€followed€the€SupremeÐ L œ ÐCourtððs€decisions€in€ò òòòFrye€v.€Memphis€State€Univ.ó óóó,€671€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1984)€and€ò òòòCase€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCarneyó óóó,€213€Tenn.€597,€376€S.W.2d€492€(1964).€€With€respect€to€ò òòòFryeó óóó,€which€involved€the€tenureÐ $ t Ðof€university€faculty,€the€ò òòòTucker€óóó ócourt€found€it€inapplicable,€due€to€the€fact€that€ò òòòFrye€óóó óinvolved€a€clearÐ  ` Ðand€convincing€evidence€standard.€€ò òòòTuckeró óóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€620.€€ò òòòÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àCaseó óóó€involved€a€beer€boardððs€denial€of€a€beer€license.€€ò òòòTuckeró óóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€620.€€ThisÐ Ð  Ðcourt€in€ò òòòTucker€óóó ódifferentiated€ò òòòCaseó ó€óófrom€the€case€before€it€as€follows:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àUnder€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.]€ðð€27„9„111,€a€person€aggrieved€by€theÐ ”ä  Ðaction€of€a€beer€board€had€the€sole€remedy€by€the€circuit€or€chanceryÐ €Ð  Ðcourt€by€the€statutory€writ€of€certiorari€with€trial€de€novo€as€aÐ l¼ Ðsubstitute€for€appeal€with€the€cause€being€tried€as€if€it€had€originatedÐ X¨ Ðin€said€court,€and€the€Trial€Judge€is€required€to€make€an€independentÐ D” Ðjudgment€for€that€of€the€board.Ð0€` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€is€the€relief€requested€by€the€plaintiffs€in€the€present€case,€butÐ X Ðthis€is€not€a€beer€board€case,€and€is€not€subject€to€the€provisions€of€theÐ ôD Ðcode€provisions€for€review€of€beer€board€cases€where€the€applicantÐ à0 Ðhas€a€right€to€a€license€unless€specified€facts€exist,€and€judicial€reviewÐ Ì Ðde€novo€reviews€the€question€of€whether€such€prohibitory€facts€exist.и` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€present€case€presents€a€different€situation€wherein€the€statuteÐ à Ðrequires€the€Board€to€consider€specified€criteria,€but€does€not€conferÐ |Ì Ðupon€the€applicant€the€right€to€a€permit€if€one€or€more€prohibitoryÐ h¸ Ðconditions€exist.ÐT ¤` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNevertheless,€the€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidence€ruleðð€and€theÐ ,"|  Ðð ðarbitrary€or€capricious€ruleðð€require€that€some€substantial€reason€beÐ #h! Ðproven€for€refusing€the€permit€before€the€Board€may€validly€refuse€theÐ $T" Ðpermit.€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.]€ðð€68„211„704(c)€requires€the€reviewingÐ ð$@ # Ðcourt€to€consider€all€evidence€presented€to€the€Board,€plus€anyÐ Ü%,!$ Ðrelevant€evidence€presented€to€the€Court€and€to€decide€de€novo€theÐ È&"% Ðfactual€question€of€whether€a€fact€or€facts€exist€which€justified€theÐ ´'#& ÐBoard€in€refusing€the€permit.Р(ð#'` x` x ÐÌò òòòTuckeró óóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€620„21€(citation€omitted).€€This€court€then€affirmed€the€action€of€the€trialÐ x*È%) Ðcourt€in€denying€the€permit.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€623.Ð d+´&* Їà  àWe€believe€that€ò òòòTuckeró óóó€is€controlling€and€that€its€interpretation€of€the€Jackson€Lawððs€òòde€novoóóÐ ° Ðreview€language€is€the€correct€interpretation€of€this€statutory€concept.€€Following€ò òòòTuckeró óóó,€we€findÐ œì Ðno€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€interpretation€of€òòde€novo€óóreview€under€the€Jackson€Law.€€Clearly,€underÐ ˆØ Ðò òòòTuckeró óóó,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€standard€in€determiningÐ tÄ Ðwhether€substantial€and€material€evidence€existed€to€justify€the€decision€of€the€Commission.€€Further,Ð `° Ðwe€find€that€the€trial€court€correctly€refused€to€substitute€its€independent€judgment€for€that€of€theÐ L œ ÐCommission,€since€such€a€substitution€was€ð ðclearly€not€the€legislative€intent.ðð€€ò òòòTuckeró óóó,€944€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€619.€€Thus,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  ÓC.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓE«Óà  àTWM€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€upholding€the€Commissionððs€denial€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðapplication€for€an€expansion,€because,€again€according€to€TWM,€both€the€denial€by€the€CommissionÐ À  Ðand€the€subsequent€affirmation€by€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€eight€statutory€criteriaÐ ¬ü  Ðunder€the€Jackson€Law.€€We€disagree.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€hearing€before€the€Commission,€TWM€asserts€that€there€was€a€lack€ofÐ pÀ Ðevidence€to€support€the€Commissionððs€denial€of€TWMððs€application.€€TWM€also€contends€that€theÐ \¬ ÐCommissionððs€failure€to€give€proper€consideration€to€each€of€the€eight€Jackson€Law€criteria€resultedÐ H˜ Ðin€an€ð ðunconstitutional€execution€of€authority€delegated€by€the€General€Assembly.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àTo€address€these€contentions€in€reverse€order,€we€find€no€error€in€the€Commissionððs€relianceÐ  \ Ðon€the€òòmostóó€relevant€criteria€in€making€its€decision.€€As€TWM€applied€for€the€expansion€of€anÐ øH Ðexisting€landfill,€rather€than€the€construction€of€a€new€landfill,€most€of€the€criteria€were€not€inÐ ä4 Ðdispute.€€The€type€of€waste€and€the€method€of€disposal€at€the€landfill€have€not€changed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(1)&(2).€€There€would€be€no€difference€in€the€noise€and€odor€created€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€landfill.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(3).€€The€landfill€expansion€should€not€create€anÐ ¨ø Ðincrease€in€traffic,€which€would€call€into€question€the€adequacy€of€roads€and€bridges.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(5).€€As€the€current€landfill€has€been€in€operation€since€1993,€theÐ €Ð Ðexpansion€would€certainly€be€compatible€with€the€existing€development€and€zoning€plans.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(7).€€Clearly,€the€only€two€relevant€criteria€in€the€instant€case€are€theÐ X ¨ Ðprojected€impact€on€property€values,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(4),€and€the€economicÐ D!” Ðimpact€on€the€county,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„704(b)(6).€€The€Commission€was€certainlyÐ 0"€  Ðentitled€to€rely€most€heavily€on€these€criteria€when€making€its€decision.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAs€to€TWMððs€contention€that€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€the€Commissionððs€decision,Ð ô$D # Ðwe€hold€that€the€testimony€of€John€Thornton€and€Ted€Lynn,€with€respect€to€both€the€projectedÐ à%0!$ Ðnegative€impact€on€property€values€in€the€area,€as€well€as€the€projected€substantial€amount€of€taxÐ Ì&"% Ðrevenues€that€Thorntonððs€development€would€bring€to€the€county,€if€believed,€formed€a€sufficientÐ ¸'#& Ðbasis€for€the€denial€of€TWMððs€application.€€It€is€obvious€that€a€majority€of€the€CommissionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaccredited€this€testimony.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àTWM€next€argues€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€before€the€trial€court€to€warrant€theÐ ° Ðâ âaffirmation€of€the€Commissionððs€decision.€€However,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€ample€proofÐ œì Ðon€which€the€trial€court€could€and€did€base€its€decision.€€The€trial€court€heard€from€at€least€threeÐ ˆØ Ðwitnesses€with€substantial€experience€in€real€estate,€who€testified€that€the€expansion€would€have€aÐ tÄ Ðnegative€impact€on€Thunder€Bend,€and,€hence,€a€negative€impact€on€the€potential€good€to€the€countyÐ `° Ðresulting€from€the€potential€success€of€that€development.€€TWMððs€own€expert€witness€admitted€thatÐ L œ Ðhe€was€never€asked€to€take€the€Thunder€Bend€development€into€consideration€when€analyzing€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðimpact€on€property€values.€€With€respect€to€the€economic€impact,€the€Loudon€County€tax€assessorÐ $ t Ðtestified€that€Thunder€Bend€could€have€an€ð ðastronomicalðð€impact€on€the€countyððs€tax€revenues.€Ð  ` ÐCertainly,€this€was€substantial€and€material€evidence€on€which€the€trial€court€could€base€its€decisionÐ ü L  Ðto€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Commission.€€As€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðeven€[TWMððs]€own€expertsÐ è 8  Ðconcede€that€reasonable€people€could€reach€the€conclusion€that€expansion€of€the€landfill€couldÐ Ô$  Ðnegatively€impactðð€the€surrounding€property€values.€€Based€upon€all€of€this€evidence,€we€cannot€sayÐ À  Ðthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinations€underpinning€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðholding€that€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€Commissionððs€decision.€€Accordingly,€we€findÐ ˜è  Ðno€error€in€either€the€Commissionððs€denial€of€the€application€for€expansion€or€the€trial€courtððsÐ „Ô  Ðsubsequent€judgement€upholding€that€action.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓD.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ’¿Óà  àFinally,€TWM€asserts€that,€if€successful€on€this€appeal,€it€is€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€andÐ  p Ðlitigation€costs€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Equal€Access€to€Justice€Act,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  \ Ððð€29„37„104(a)(2)(A)&(b)(2)€(2000).€€Since€this€appeal€was€not€successful,€it€follows€that€this€issueÐ øH Ðis€found€adverse€to€TWM.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð ¼  ÐÓkÁÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€theÐ ”ä Ðcollection€of€costs€assessed€below,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ €Ð Ðappellant,€Tennessee€Waste€Movers,€Inc.Ð l¼ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE