Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

z.g. November 15, 1996 -- Page 7 Rezoning Neighbors fear what a heavy industrial zone might.bring Carter v. Adams, 928 S.W..2d 39 (Tennessee) 1996 Adams and Collins owned neighboring properties in Greene County, Tenn. If they combined their two tracts, they could meet the county zoning ordinance's 100-acre size requirement for a landfill. They formed a partnership to put the two properties together, and gave a company Collins owned exclusive rights to use the landfill. The land was in an area zoned for residences, agriculture, small busi- nesses, and light industry. To operate the demolition landfill they wanted, Adams and Collins wanted to get the property rezoned for heavy industrial uses. They applied to the county Planning Commission, which denied their request. Adams and Collins appealed to the Greene County Commission, which approved the rezoning. Carter, a neighbor, appealed the rezoning to court. He thought the landfill would harm the area's character, which was quiet, peaceful and mostly agri- cultural. He also believed the added traffic for the landfill would make the roads unsafe. At trial, the county executive testified the landfill the cOunty was using was near capacity, so the county needed a new one. Although he said people supported Adams and Collins' proposal for that reason, he admitted people spoke on both sides of the issue. A community planner from the state Depart- ment of Economic and Community Development said a landfill on that loca- tion would be acceptable, and a lot of other places would be worse for it. An environmental specialist with the state Division of Solid Waste Management testified that the property's characteristics were proper for a landfill. The court declared the rezoning invalid. It found that a landfill probably would not be that big a problem in the area, but other uses that could later be allowed if the property were zoned for heavy industry might be (e.g., a chemi- cal plant would be legal under the new zoning). The county and Adams appealed. DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the trial court. The trial court improperly overturned the County Commission's rezoning decision. The court should not have substituted its judgment for the commission's. Based on the competing arguments, the commission's deci- sion could be considered rational. Whether future uses under the rezoning could be worse was an issue the commission -- not the courts -- had to consider. The case was sent back to the trial court, and the trial court was ordered to dismiss Carter's lawsuit. McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W. 2d 633 (1990). Hemontolor v. Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals, 883 S.W. 2d 613 (1994). $7