A-1 WASTE, LLC v. MADISON COUNTY MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PLANNING REGION BOARD, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Chandra Williams on Jul 31, 2015

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

William L. Penny, Jerry W. Taylor, and Kevin P. Hartley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, A-1 Waste, LLC.

Attorneys 2:

John S. Hicks and Elizabeth B. McCostlin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Madison County Municipal Solid Waste Planning Region Board. Lyndsay Smith Hyde and Andrea T. McKellar, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Concerned Citizens of Madison County.

Judge(s): MCBRAYER

The Madison County solid waste planning region board rejected an application, submitted on behalf of A-1 Waste, LLC, to construct a solid waste landfill. In light of the rejection, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation declined to issue the landfill permit. A-1 Waste appealed the region board?s rejection to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. A-1 Waste also requested review of the Commissioner?s action by the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board. The chancery court stayed A-1 Waste?s appeal pending the outcome of the control board?s review. The control board reversed the region board and ordered that the permit be granted. The region board subsequently petitioned the chancery court for review of the control board?s decision. The chancery court consolidated A-1 Waste?s appeal with the appeal filed by the region board and a third action filed by a group of concerned citizens. Following a hearing, the chancery court reversed the control board?s decision and the issuance of the permit. On appeal, A-1 Waste claims the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review to the region board?s decision and that the decision was properly reversed by the control board. A-1 Waste also claims that the group of concerned citizens lacked standing to seek judicial review of the control board?s decision. We conclude that the control board lacked authority to review the region board?s decision and that the region board properly rejected the permit application. We also conclude the concerned citizens had standing to appeal the control board?s decision. Therefore, we affirm.

Attachments: