WPC% # VUNa % 0w@ 4  B 0?0 0Do 0J 0T 0^Q 0h 0r 0| 0  0 1u# 0dU>U*:B)dDC AM D3U*Pz 0@%(e Xv~v  AO#,$ 0D$ D/6% Be%HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(3c$7|XXdXXd7  HTXXTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT EDDӀf|$3|x d((3$ 3c!7\XXdd7  HtXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G 'dxd<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#%    H %\RA'\  ++   YYY FILED+X July30,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.+AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !  #d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Itwasnotbeingusedasaplaceofpublicworship,butonoccasiontheownerwouldallowgatheringssuchasweddingreceptions,babyshowers,receptions,andthelike,inadditiontothelesseesdaycarecenter.  !#d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %TheLoudonCountyordinanceprovidesthatnoretailbeerpermitsforoffpremisesconsumptionshallbeissuedforanylocationwithin500feetofachurch,schoolorotherpublicgatheringplace. N !#d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Sheisnotaparty.  !#d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Wethinkthisstatementwasaninadvertence.Theremedyisclearlybythestatutorywrit.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %#&&Xd#    H %\RA'\    7\XdXXd7   R),(A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATKNOXVILLE  THEUNITEDMETHODIST  ) LOUDONCHANCERY CHURCH,     )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee   )v.      ) NO.03A019710CH00477      )̜LOUDONCOUNTYBEERBOARD ) HON.FRANKV.WILLIAMS,IIIandJAMESAUSTINWATSON, ) CHANCELLORd/b/a,J&CPACKAGESTORE, )      ) Defendants/Appellants  ) AFFIRMEDJohnCarson,III,Madisonville,forAppellantJamesAustinWatsonJamesH.Simpson,LenoirCity,forAppellant,LoudonCountyBeerBoardRexA.Dale,LenoirCity,forAppellee,TheUnitedMethodistChurch      @ % OPINION%       INMAN,SeniorJudge TheBeerBoardconductedapublichearingonJanuary21,1997toconsidertheapplicationofJamesWatsonforapermittosellbeeroffpremisesatalocation485feetdistantfromabuildingownedbyTheUnitedMethodist͜Church[ UMC]. .   ׀andleasedtoBonnieKeeblewhooperatedadaycarecentertherein. Thereweremanycitizensinattendanceatthehearingwhoexpressedtheiroppositiontothegrantingofthepermit.ItwasrepresentedtotheBoardbytheattorneyforMr.Watsonthattheproposedlocationwasmorethan500feetfromanyplaceofpublicgathering, /   כwhichrepresentationwasapparentlyacceptedbytheBoardnotonlyasevidencebutastruthofthefact.Ms.Keeblewaspresentatthemeetingandvoicedherobjectiontotheissuanceofthepermit. 0    TheBoardissuedthepermitonJanuary21,1997. OnJanuary30,1997theUMC,byitsattorney,sentalettertoeachBoardmemberadvisingthemthatthepermitviolatedthe500footordinanceandrequestedtheBoardtoconductarevocationhearing.TheBoardtooknoaction. Thereupon,theUMC,onMarch20,1997filedapetitionforawritofcertiorari,pursuanttoT.C.A.278101etseq.andT.C.A.575108againsttheBeerBoardandMr.Watson,seekingrevocationofthepermitsolelybecauseitwasissuedinviolationofthe500footrule.TheBeerBoardandMr.WatsonmovedtodismissthewritbecausetheChurchwasnotanaggrievedpartyandhadnostandingtointerveneinthematter. TheChancellorheldthatadenovoreviewwaspropersince wearehereonacommonlawwritofcertiorari; 1   ׀thatthescopeofreviewwasnotlimitedtoadeterminationofwhethertheBoardsactionwasillegal,arbitraryorcapricious;andthattheBoarddidnotactillegally,arbitrarilyorcapriciously.HefurtherheldthatthedaycarecenterwasaplaceofpublicϜgatheringandthatthepermitlocationwaswithin500feetofit,whichrequiredrevocationofthepermitbecause theBoardactedinexcessofitsauthority. T.C.A.575108providesthatpermitsmayberevokedbytheBeerBoard,whoseactionmaybejudiciallyreviewedbythestatutorywritofcertiorariwithatrialdenovo.Thisprocedureisexclusive.Therefusaltograntalicenseisalsoreviewable. TheappellantarguesthattheUMClacksstandingtomaintainthisactionbecauseitismerelyalandlord.T.C.A.279101providesthatanyonewhoisaggrievedbythejudgmentofanyBoardmayhavesuchjudgmentjudiciallyreviewed.Tobeanaggrievedpartyunderthestatute,apartyshouldallegefactsdemonstratingthat he,sheoritisadverselyaffectedbythedecisionoftheadministrativeagencyandshouldbeabletoshowaspecialinterestinthefinaldecision,andaspecialinjurynotcommontothepublicgenerally.LeagueCent.CreditUnionv.Mottern,660S.W.2d787(Tenn.App.1983);Sacsv.ShelbyCountyElectionCommission,525S.W.2d672(Tenn.1975);Bennettv.Stutts,521S.W.2d575(Tenn.1975).ButtheUMCismorethanalandlord;therecordrevealsthataportionofthebuildingissometimesmadeavailableforweddings,receptions,andrelatedactivities.WethinkthattheϜUMChassufficientlydemonstratedthatithasaspecialinterestintheresult,andaspecialinjurynotcommontothepublicgenerally.ThefindingoftheChancellorthattheformerchurchbuildingremainedaplaceofpublicgatheringissupportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Thejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellants.Ӝ      _______________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge_______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge