Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ISI Holdings of TN, LLC v. Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

September 12, 2017

ISI HOLDINGS OF TN, LLC, ET AL.
v.
MOUNT PLEASANT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL.

          Session August 22, 2017

         Appeal from the Chancery Court for Maury County No. 16-049 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

         This is 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.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

          Mark E. McGrady, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission.

          Kori Bledsoe Jones, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mount Pleasant Power System.

          Brian Christian Neal and Gregory T. Young, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, ISI Holdings of TN, LLC and Insulating Services, Inc. [1]

          J. 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.

          OPINION

          J. STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE

         Background

         Appellant 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.

         The 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.

         At the 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.

         After 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 utility improvements."
2. Thereafter, on September 13, 2016, the Planning Commission approved the Project under the Amended Ordinance;
3. Thereafter, [the Power System] began constructing the Project; [and]
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.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.