Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

~Page 2~ October 15, 1996 Z.B. ~ Conditional Use -- Quarry request puts board members between a rock and a hard place ~ Hoover Inc. v. Metro 2oard of ZoningAppeals, 924 S.W. 2d 900 (Tennessee) 1996 Hoover Inc. wanted to build a stone processing plant in Nashville and ~ Davidson County, Tenn. Zoning regulations would allow the plant as a condi- i tionaI use, so the company asked the county's Metropolitan Board of Zoning ~ Appeal for a conditional use permit.. . ~ The company's president was a member of the board. Four months before ~ the board's hearing, two other board members wrote him saying they felt it would be inappropriate for them to vote on the application unless he resigned from the board. Later, they restated their position. Usually the board had seven members, but one resigned before the hear- ~ ing. The company's president did not attend because of his conflict of inter- i est. Despite their feeling that voting on.the matter would be inappropriate, the two letter-writing members showed up for the hearing so a quorum could be present. (They said they didn't want the matter to linger on for several months.) The company gave evidence that its proposal complied with zoning. ~ Quite concerned about the application, opposing neighbors gave evidence that it did not. i- To get the permit, four board members had to vote in the company's favor. '. Of the five members present, two voted against the request and three -- in- cluding the two letter writers -- abstained. One of the members who voted ~ against the permit said he thought the plan met all legal requirements, but he ~ could not vote for it because he felt a "moral obligation" to his neighbors. The three abstainers expressed similar sentiments that despite the plan's compli~ ance, they couldn't vote for it in good conscience. i Because the company didn't get four favorable votes, the board denied the permit. Hoover appealed to court. The court found several procedural errors and ~ sent the case back to the board. The board appealed. The appeals court found the board did not commit . any procedural errors, and sent the case back to the lower court to "review the Board's decision on its merits." The lower court then affirmed the board's decision, based on a finding · that the company's proposal did not comply withzoning. The company appealed. DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the lower court. The lower court improperly upheld the board's decision. The judgment was reversed and the case was sent back to the lower court for any further proceedings necessary. The lower court applied the wrong standard when it affirmed the board's decision. The court examined whether evidence supported the conclusion that the company's plan didn't meet zoning requirements. However, that wasn't