Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

February 25, 2010 ' Volume 41 No. 4 Zoning Bulletin Case Note: The ZBA, in ordering the cease and desist order, had also maintained that Lallier had exceeded the scope of the PZC's approval. The ZBA said that Lallier's gravel removal operations were not just activities "incidental to an agricultural operation," but rather constituted a commercial earth removal operation. The trial court had found that substantial evidence did not show that Lal- lier. had exceeded the scope of the authority conferred on him by the original approval. The appellate court agreed. The scope of the PZC's approval was broad —fully disclosing Lallier's "intent to turn his property into grazing land ... by removing the precise amount of gravel that he now proposes to remove and to sell." "The court ac- knowledged that perhaps Lallier's activities —having such a potential for adverse community consequences —should not have been given blanket approval" by the PZC. However, said the court, the "rem- edy for improper approvals" was a timely appeal. Also, no such ap- peal was ever made. Nonconforming Uses —County planning commission sues to enjoin operation of a noncomplying mobile home park Park owner claims park is a commercial use grandfathered under state law Citation: Smith County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hiwassee Village Mobile Home Park, LLC, 2010 WL 252285 (Tenn. 2010) TENNESEEE (01/22/10)—This case addressed the applicability of Tennessee's "Grandfather Clause," Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7- 208(b)(1), to: (1) county regulations; and (2) mobile home parks. The Background/Facts: Hiwassee Village Mobile Home Park, LLC ("Hiwassee") owned and operated a mobile home park (the "Park") in the county. In 2002, the county's planning commission (the "Commis- sion") sued Hiwassee. The Commission alleged that Hiwassee was oper- ating the Park in violation of the county's Private Act. The Commission asked the court to enjoin the operation of Hiwassee's Park. The county's Private Act regulated mobile home parks in the county. Among other things, the Private Act made it "unlawful for any person to place or maintain three (3) or more mobile homes for living or sleeping purposes on any premises or tract of land in [the county]." Hiwassee admitted that the Park was not in compliance with the Pri- vate Act. However, Hiwassee maintained that, since a previous owner had established the Park before the Private Act took effect, the Park was grandfathered as a prior legal commercial use pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(b)(1). Thus, Hiwassee argued, the Park was 4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 64