ÿWPCð  …U:V % 0(–R¾wš4ª¾ 0¤Í 0Dq 0Jµ 0Tÿ S 0^[ 0h¹ 0r! 0|“ 0† 0• 1u% 0dš Bþ U *B)EDCn AM±þ•ÿl”‡v~‡ D3vÓ8 0@  AOKÆš 0D` D/¤ BÓ , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\opcir.wpt%& '( )P*+E,E-.D/U0D1E2U3U4D5D6•789:;<Ó€HÚƒç"Ôô3|xJ(T(2âé$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJuly€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€SC€is€limited€to€retail€uses.€€SC€limits€building€height€to€a€maximum€ofÏthree€stories€and€is€intended€for€retail€developments€that€generally€attractÏconsumers€from€the€surrounding€residential€areas.Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€PC€permits€extensive€commercial€services€and€light€distributionÏcenters.€€Buildings€may€exceed€four€stories€in€height€in€land€zoned€as€PC.€€PCÏis€intended€to€draw€customers€from€both€outside€and€inside€the€immediateÏresidential€area.€€This€attraction€of€a€larger€market€may€increase€consumerÏtraffic€to€the€area.€€The€presence€of€commercial€trucking€may€also€be€moreÏprevalent€in€land€zoned€as€PC€as€opposed€to€SC.Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€13„7„105€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€asÏfollows:ÌÌà8 à(a)€€The€€county€legislative€body€may€from€time€to€time€amend€theÏnumber,€shape,€boundary,€area€or€any€other€provision€of€anyÏzoning€ordinance;€but€such€amendment€shall€not€be€made€orÏbecome€effective€unless€that€same€be€first€submitted€for€approval,Ïdisapproval€or€suggestions€to€the€regional€planning€commission€ofÏthe€region€in€which€the€territory€covered€by€the€ordinance€isÏlocated,€and,€if€such€regional€planning€commission€disapprovesÏwithin€thirty€(30)€days€after€such€admission,€such€amendment€shallÏrequire€the€favorable€vote€of€a€majority€of€the€entire€membership€ofÏthe€county€legislative€body.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ìŸXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€$%#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óWESTLAND€WEST€COMMUNITYà@ à)à àò òFiled:€òò€€€€€July€7,€1997à€ àóóó óÌASSOCIATION,€et€al.à@ à)Ìà àà@ à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à@ à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€Sharon€Bell,€ChancellorÌà@ à)ÌKNOX€COUNTY,€et€al.,à@ à)à àNo.€03S01„9610„CH„00098Ìà@ à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGeorge€W.€Morton,€Jr.à àà àà àCourtney€N.€PearreÌKnoxvilleà àà àà àà àà àKnoxvilleÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€W.€MoyersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnox€County€Law€DepartmentÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxvilleÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€!èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSEDà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð13„7„105(a)€mandates€submission€of€a€newly€proposed€zoning€classificationÏamendment€to€the€regional€planning€commission€following€the€commission'sÏrejection€of€a€similar€but€different€proposed€classification.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏheld€that€the€statute€does€not€require€futile€resubmissions€of€revised€proposals.€ÏWe,€however,€find€that€the€proposal€in€question€was€not€merely€a€revised€priorÏproposal€but€was€a€new€and€previously€unsubmitted€proposal.€€The€statuteÏclearly€mandates€submission€of€new€proposals€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission.€€We€reverse€the€Appellate€Court€and€hold€that€the€new€zoningÏproposal€should€have€been€submitted€to€the€regional€planning€commission.ÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÌà àThe€appellee,€Thomas€N.€Schriver,€filed€a€rezoning€application€with€theÏKnoxville„Knox€County€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission€(ð ðMPCðð).€€HisÏapplication€sought€to€amend€a€tract€of€landððs€zoning€from€Agriculture€("A")€toÍShopping€Center€(ð ðSCðð)× ƒ& ××  ×.€€The€MPC€unanimously€denied€Schriverððs€requestedÏchange.€€He€then€appealed€the€MPCððs€decision€to€the€County€Commission.€ÌÌà àDuring€the€hearing€before€the€County€Commission,€the€appelleeÏpresented€a€zoning€proposal€that€differed€from€the€proposal€he€originallyÏsubmitted€to€the€MPC.€€He€requested€the€commission€to€rezone€the€property€toÏPlanned€Commercial€("PC")× ƒ' ××  ×€as€opposed€to€SC.€€The€County€CommissionÏapproved€the€revised€amendment€request€and€rezoned€the€property€as€PC.ÌÌà àThe€appellants,€Westland€West€Community€Association,€òòetóó€òòalóó.,€appealedÏthe€commission's€zoning€decision€to€the€Knox€County€Chancery€Court.€€TheyÏalleged€that€the€Commissionððs€decision€was€void.€€They€argued€that€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€13„7„105(a)× ƒ( ××  ×€mandated€that€the€appellee€submit€his€new€proposal€to€theÏMPC€prior€to€seeking€review€before€the€County€Commission.€€The€chanceryÏcourt€agreed€and€held€that€when€the€appellee€changed€his€request€from€SC€toÏPC,€he€was€required€to€by€statute€to€resubmit€the€zoning€request€to€the€MPC.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€chancery€court's€decision.€€TheyÏfound€that€resubmission€of€the€more€onerous€proposed€amendment€to€MPCÏwould€have€been€futile€due€to€the€MPC's€previous€determination€that€"anyÏcommercial€zone€would€be€contrary€to€the€.€.€.€Sector€plan."€€Pursuant€to€òòWilgusÏv.€City€of€Murfreesboroóó,€532€S.W.2d€50€(Tenn.€App.€1975),€the€court€held€thatÏresubmission€is€not€mandated€unless€there€is€"a€strong€probability€that€theÏ[regional€planning]€commission's€recommendation€would€have€been€affectedÏby€the€revision."ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSTATUTORY€CONSTRUCTIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred›€in€focusing€itsÏanalysis€solely€on€whether€the€board's€decision€would€have€been€the€sameÏupon€resubmission.€€They€maintain€that€the€proper€inquiry€should€focus€on€theÏgravity€of€the€revised€proposal's€changes.€€Provided€the€revisions€areÏsubstantial,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð13„7„105(a)€mandates€resubmission.€€We€agreeÏin€part.ÌÌà àA€county€legislative€body€is€vested€the€statutory€power€to€amend€zoningÏordinances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð13„7„105(a).€€A€proposed€zoning€amendment,Ïhowever,€shall€neither€be€granted€nor€become€effective€unless€the€proposedÏamendment€is€first€submitted€to€the€regional€planning€commission.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏregional€commission€can€then€either€approve,€disapprove,€or€makeÏsuggestions.€€òòIdóó.€€If€the€regional€commission€rejects€the€proposed€amendment,Ïthe€amendment€may€then€be€submitted€to€the€county€legislative€body€forÏapproval.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àOur€analysis€is€guided€by€the€principles€of€statutory€interpretation.€ÏLegislative€intent€shall€be€derived€from€a€statute's€face€when€a€statute'sÍlanguage€is€unambiguous.€€òòHamblen€County€Educ.€Ass'n€v.€Hamblen€CountyÏBd.€of€Educ.óó,€892€S.W.2d€428,€435€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCarsonÏCreek€Vac.€Resorts€v.€Dept.€of€Rev.óó,€€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993)€(statingÏwhere€language€within€four€corners€of€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguousÏambiguous,€intent€shall€be€derived€from€statute's€face).€€If€a€statute's€language€isÏexpressed€in€a€manner€devoid€of€ambiguity,€courts€are€not€at€liberty€to€departÏfrom€the€statute's€words.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€courts€are€restricted€to€the€"naturalÏand€ordinary"€meaning€of€a€statute€unless€an€ambiguity€necessitates€resortingÏelsewhere€to€ascertain€legislative€intent.€€òòAustin€v.€Memphis€Publ.€Coóó.,€655ÏS.W.2d€146,€149€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àWe€find€the€statute's€language€clear.€€A€proposed€amendment€to€aÏzoning€scheme€must€first€be€submitted€to€the€regional€planning€commission.€€If€aÏproposed€zoning€amendment€is€not€first€presented€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission,€the€county€commission€is€devoid€of€jurisdiction€to€act€upon€theÏproposal.ÌÌœà àOnce€a€proposed€admendment€has›€been€submitted€to€the€regionalÏplanning€commission,€the€proposal€may€be€revised.€€Whether€the€revisedÏproposal€must€then€be€resubmitted€to€the€regional€planning€commission€isÏcontingent€upon:€€(1)€€the€gravity€of€the€revision(s),€and€(2)€€whether€the€board'sÍrecommendations€would€have€been€altered€by€the€œrevision(s).€€òòWilgus€v.€City€ofÏMurfeesboroóó,›€532€S.W.2d€50,€53„54€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975).€€If€the€revision€isÏinconsequential€and€would€not€have€altered€the€board's€recommendation,Ïresubmission€is€not€mandated.€€If,€however,€the€revision(s)€substantially€altersÏthe€initial€proposal,€the€proper€inquiry€is:€€(1)€whether€there€is€a€detrimentalÏimpact€on€those€who€would€oppose€the€proposal;€and€(2)€œwhether›€the€board'sÏrecommendations€would€have€been€altered€by€the€revision(s).€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.ÏBoard€of€Comm'rs€of€Knox€County€Tenn.óó,€806€S.W.2d€181,€188€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1990).€€An€affirmative€answer€to€either€question€mandates€resubmission.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€are€not€confronted€with€a€mere€revision€to€aÏpreviously€proposed€zoning€amendment.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€revert€to€theÏtest€for€determining€whether€a€revision€was€substantial.€€We€are€confronted€withÏan€entirely€new€zoning€classification€œproposal€(i.e.,€a€new€zoning€admendmentÏproposal)€which›€had€never€been€before€the€regional€planning€commission.€€WeÏfind€a€clear€distinction€between€a€newly€proposed€classification€and€aÏpreviously€submitted€classification€that€has€undergone€mere€revisions.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð13„7„105€mandates€submission€of€the€newÏclassification€without€further€inquiry.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€proposed€zoning€change€to€plannedÏcommercial€in€the€present€case€must€have€been€presented€to€the€regionalÏplanning€commission€before€the€county€commission€had€jurisdiction€to€act€onÏthe€proposal.€€The€county€commission's€review€and€approval€was,€therefore,Ïboth€null€and€void.€€Costs€shall€be€taxed€to€the€Knox€County€Board€ofÏCommissioners€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌœò òConcurring:ÌÌó óBirch,€C.J.ÌReid,€Drowota€and€Anderson,€JJ.