ISI HOLDINGS OF TN, LLC, ET AL.
MOUNT PLEASANT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL.
Session August 22, 2017
from the Chancery Court for Maury County No. 16-049 Stella L.
an appeal from a successful petition for a writ of certiorari
involving land use. The trial court ruled in favor of the
petitioners after finding that the location approved for the
proposed power station violated an applicable zoning
ordinance. After the trial court's decision, the City of
Mount Pleasant amended its ordinance to clarify that the
zoning ordinance did not apply to public utilities. The City
of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission thereafter approved the
construction of the power station under the amended
ordinance. The petitioners filed no writ of certiorari of the
approval under the amended ordinance and therefore ask that
this appeal be dismissed as moot. Because this case no longer
serves to offer any meaningful relief to the parties and no
exceptions to the mootness doctrine are present, we dismiss
this appeal as moot.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
E. McGrady, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mount
Pleasant Regional Planning Commission.
Bledsoe Jones, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mount
Pleasant Power System.
Christian Neal and Gregory T. Young, Nashville, Tennessee,
for the appellees, ISI Holdings of TN, LLC and Insulating
Services, Inc. 
Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the
court, in which Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and
Richard H. Dinkins, JJ., joined.
STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE
Mount Pleasant Power System ("the Power System")
proposed a municipal project for the construction of an
electrical substation, an open pole yard, and an open
transformer storage area ("the Project"), which was
approved by the Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission
("the Planning Commission" and together with the
Power System, "Appellants") on or about December 8,
2015. Appellees ISI Holdings of TN, LLC and Insulating
Services, Inc. (together, "Appellees") either own
or occupy the property adjacent to the property upon which
the Project is to be constructed. On February 3, 2016,
Appellees filed a verified petition for a writ of certiorari
and supersedeas to challenge the approval, arguing that the
approval violated the zoning regulations contained in the
Mount Pleasant Municipal Code, and that the Power System
provided inadequate notice of the Project. Specifically,
Appellees alleged that the Mount Pleasant Municipal Code
required that public utility uses be confined to areas zoned
"AG, " or agricultural districts, while the
property proposed for the Project was zoned "LM",
for restrictive light manufacturing uses.
trial court entered an order directing the Clerk and Master
to issue writs of certiorari and supersedeas on February 4,
2016. The record from the administrative proceeding was
subsequently filed in the trial court. Shortly thereafter,
Appellants filed a motion to dissolve the writ of supersedeas
on the ground that Appellees failed to provide adequate
notice or post a bond. In the alternative, Appellants asked
that bond be set at no less than $1 million. The matter was
set by agreement for final hearing on June 2, 2016.
hearing, the parties stipulated to certain facts and exhibits
to be considered by the trial court. Following the hearing,
the trial court entered an order overturning the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the Project as
"illegal, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of
discretion" because the Project did not comply with
Mount Pleasant's zoning ordinance. The trial court also
denied Appellants' request to dissolve the writ of
supersedeas. Appellants appealed.
Appellants filed their briefs, on January 19, 2017, Appellees
filed a motion to consider post-judgment facts and dismiss
the appeal as moot. Appellees argued that this Court should
consider the following facts:
1. While this appeal was pending, on August 23, 2016, the
Mount Pleasant City Commission passed Ordinance 2016-989
("Amended Ordinance") that does the following:
a. Permits public utilities in any zoning district within the
City of Mount Pleasant; [and] b. Specifies that the
restrictions set forth for properties zoned LM, among other
things, "shall not apply to public utilities or public
2. Thereafter, on September 13, 2016, the Planning Commission
approved the Project under the Amended Ordinance;
3. Thereafter, [the Power System] began constructing the
4. Appellees have not timely filed a Writ of Certiorari or
Declaratory Judgment action challenging passage of the
Amended Ordinance, approval of the Project by the Planning
Commission under the Amended Ordinance, or [the Power
System's] current construction of the Project.
(Internal citations omitted). Because of the Amended
Ordinance, Appellees argued that the Power System had
succeeded in getting approval for the Project and that the
appeal was rendered moot by the additional facts.
Planning Commission responded to Appellees' motion,
agreeing that facts 1, 2, and 3 should be considered in this
appeal, but arguing that because a challenge to an ordinance
is categorized as a declaratory judgment action with a ten
year statute of limitations, that the case was not rendered
moot, as Appellees still had time to challenge the ordinance
upon which the Project was approved in September 2016. The
Power System also responded, agreeing that all the facts
should be considered, but denying that the case was moot.
This Court entered an order on January 30, 2017 granting the
motion to ...