Franklin v. Williamson Cnty. Gov't
| Decision Date | 26 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. M2014-02568-COA-R3-CV,M2014-02568-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | SAVE RURAL FRANKLIN, ET AL. v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County
James G. Martin, III, Chancellor
Organizations representing property owners in close proximity to a proposed subdivision filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the regional planning commission's approval of the proposed subdivision. The planning commission and parties with an interest in the proposed subdivision filed motions to dismiss. After determining that the petition was untimely and the petitioning organizations lacked standing, the chancery court granted the motions to dismiss. The court also determined that the planning commission had acted legally in approving the subdivision. The petitioning organizations appealed. Following our review, we conclude that the statutory period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari began to run from approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision. Because the petition was filed more than sixty days after the preliminary plat was approved, the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition. Therefore, we affirm the chancery court's dismissal of the petition.
Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed
W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., joined.
G. Miller Hogan II and William B. Hawkins III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Save Rural Franklin and Save Old Hillsboro Road.
Kristi Dunlap Ransom, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Williamson County Government.
Adam O. Knight, Brentwood, Tennessee, and J. Bryan Echols, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Hillsboro Cove, LLC, Hillsboro Cove Homeowner's Association, Inc., and Grove Park Land Co., LLC.
OPINIONOn June 6, 2014, unincorporated associations, Save Rural Franklin and Save Old Hillsboro Road (the "Petitioners"), filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee. Petitioners sought judicial review of the decision of the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") to approve a new residential subdivision named Hillsboro Cove. Petitioners alleged that the Planning Commission's action in approving the Hillsboro Cove subdivision was arbitrary, capricious and illegal because the approval was in violation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Subdivision Regulations adopted for Williamson County. On June 9, 2014, the chancery court directed the clerk and master to issue the requested writ.
Petitioners consist of concerned citizens who own property or are residents in close proximity to the proposed subdivision. According to their petition, on July 17, 2013, Hillsboro Development, LLC filed an application for Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for the subdivision. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the preliminary plat on August 8, 2013. At that time, the Planning Commission deferred action on the preliminary plat until its next meeting. The Planning Commission subsequently approved the preliminary plat on September 12, 2013. Hillsboro Development sought approval of a final plat on March 19, 2014. The Planning Commission approved the final plat on April 10, 2014.
On June 20, 2014, the Planning Commission moved to dismiss the writ on the grounds that the time limit to seek review had elapsed and Petitioners lacked standing. In the alternative, the Planning Commission sought an extension of the deadline for transmitting the documents requested in the writ. After a hearing on the Planning Commission's motion, the court announced from the bench that it was granting the motion to dismiss because Petitioners lacked standing. The chancery court entered its order granting the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2014.
Following the hearing on the motion to dismiss but prior to entry of the order granting the dismissal, Petitioners filed a motion seeking to amend their petition to address standing and "to set forth their special interests" in the cause. The Planning Commission, which filedits response to the motion to amend after entry of the order of dismissal, argued that Petitioners were first required to seek relief from the order of dismissal. The Planning Commission also argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the motion to amend because the original petition was untimely. In light of the timing of the motion to amend, the chancery court elected to vacate its previous order granting the motion to dismiss and granted the motion to amend.
The Planning Commission filed both an answer to the amended petition1 and a new motion to dismiss, asserting the same grounds as its previous motion. The Planning Commission also filed a motion seeking to limit the scope of the writ. The court set a hearing on the motion to dismiss and also directed the parties to brief the additional issue of whether approval of the proposed subdivision was arbitrary, capricious or illegal.
After filing the amended petition, Petitioners moved to join additional parties-in-interest, Hillsboro Cove, LLC,2 Grove Park Land, LLC, and Hillsboro Cove Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Hillsboro Cove defendants"), on the ground that these parties had a legal or equitable interest in the subject property. The court granted the motion, and the Hillsboro Cove defendants filed their own motion to dismiss the amended petition.
On December 5, 2014, the chancery court issued its memorandum opinion and order. Although both the Planning Commission and Petitioners had filed extraneous materials with the court, the court considered the motions as motions to dismiss, not motions for summary judgment.
Initially, the court found the Planning Commission's approval of the Hillsboro Cove subdivision was an administrative act, reviewable by common law writ of certiorari. The court noted that Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-9-102 required the aggrieved party to file a petition for writ of certiorari within sixty days of entry of the judgment. After reviewing the allegations of the amended petition and the Williamson County Subdivision Regulations, the court found that "[t]he preliminary plat review process, rather than the final plat approval, is where the Planning Commission considers the Planning Staff recommendations regarding all aspects of the proposed subdivision, and the process where the proposed subdivision is actually approved." The court further found that "approval of the final plat is ministerial andthat approval of the preliminary plat triggers the sixty day period to file a petition for writ of certiorari." Because Petitioners did not file their original petition for writ of certiorari within sixty days of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plat, the court determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition.
The court also concluded that Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Planning Commission's decision. The court determined Petitioners failed to allege in either the original or the amended petition "any basis of fact as to how they have a special interest in the final decisions of the [Planning Commission] or that they have suffered a distinct and palpable injury that is not conjectural or hypothetical and is not common to the public generally."
Although the court found two grounds for dismissal of the petition, the court also considered the additional issue of whether the Planning Commission's approval of the final plat was illegal. The court reviewed the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-3-304 (2011), and the Williamson County zoning ordinance and concluded that the Planning Commission's action complied with Tennessee law.
Petitioners challenge all grounds of the chancery court's decision. Specifically, they argue the court erred in its determination that the petition was untimely, that they lacked standing, and that the Planning Commission's approval of the Hillsboro Cove subdivision was legal. The Planning Commission raises the additional issue of whether the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant Petitioners' motion to file an amended petition.
In evaluating a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss,3 the court reviews the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). By filing a Rule 12.02(6) motion, the defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, not the evidence. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). Thus, the court "must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences." Id. (quoting Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn. 2007)). The court should only grant a motion to dismiss if "the plaintiff canprove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Id. (quoting Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002)). We review the trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss de novo without any presumption of correctness. Phillips v. Montgomery Cty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn. 2014); City of Brentwood v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 149 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Petitioners sought review of the Planning Commission's approval of the Hillsboro Cove subdivision under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-9-101. The statute permits "[a]nyone who may be aggrieved by any final order or judgment of any board or commission functioning under the laws of this state" to...
To continue reading
Request your trial