Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Page 2 w August 10, 1998 Z.B. Zoning Change N Can board rely on neighborhood opposition in denying rezoning request? Citation: Day v. City of Decherd, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, No. O1-A-O1-9708-CH-O0442 (]998) The Days bought residential property in the city of Decherd, Tenn. They presented a plat to the city planning commission, seeking to rezone the prop- erty so they could use it for mini-warehouses. The property was a large lot on a highway with an old home at the rear. The property on three sides was zoned residential. The state community planner, who consulted with the city on land use problems, told the commission he had reservations about using the property for mini-warehouses based on other de- velopment plans for the downtown area. The planning commission recommended the change, but told the Days the city board would have to approve the ordinance creating the change. The board refused to approve the change. The Days sued the city. They asked the court to vacate the board's decision and sought an order preventing the city from enforcing its zoning ordinance against them. The Days said the board refused to rezone the property based solely on neighborhood opposition, which they said violated state law. They relied on a case in which the court held a zoning board couldn't deny a condi- tional use permit based solely on neighborhood opposition. The court dismissed the Days' complaint, and they appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Whether to rezone the Days' property was at the board's sole discretion. The Days correctly argued the board couldn't deny a conditional use permit based solely on neighborhood opposition, but a rezoning request wasn't the same as a special use request. An applicant for a special use permit was entitled to the permit when all the zoning ordinance's requirements were met; all the board had to determine was whether the applicant satisfied the ordinance. The Days, however, sought a zoning change. When a municipal board considered whether to grant a zoning change, its members acted as legislators. They could listen to their constituents and. try to please as many people as possible. Regardless, there was enough evidence for the board to deny the Days' request to rezone their property to build mini-warehouses. The property was surrounded on three sides by residential property, and the state planner said the proposed warehouses would be inconsistent with other development plans for the city's downtown area. see also: Hoover Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, 924 S.W. 2d 900 (1996). see also: Fallin v. Knox County Board of Commissioners, 656 S.W. 2d 338 (1983). q7