Harrell v. Hamblen County Quarterly Court

• Decision Date: 26 March 1975
• Citation: 526 S.W.2d 505
• Parties: Bruce HARRELL et al., v. HAMBLEN COUNTY QUARTERLY COURT and Hamblen County Planning Commission.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 505

526 S.W.2d 505

Bruce HARRELL et al., v. HAMBLEN COUNTY QUARTERLY COURT and Hamblen County Planning Commission.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

March 26, 1975 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Aug. 18, 1975.

John F. Dugger, Morristown, for appellant.

A. Benjamin Strand, Jr., Dandridge, for intervening petitioners.

Anderson & Anderson, and William O. Foutch, Jr., Morristown, for appellees.

OPINION

SANDERS, Judge.

The Hamblen County Quarterly Court and the Hamblen County Planning Commission have appealed from a decree of the Chancery Court holding that they acted arbitrarily in denying the Petitioners a permit to construct a mobile home park.

The Petitioners, Bruce Harrell, Frank Harrell, Johnny McCrary and Ralph P. Masengill, Sr., are the owners of a tract of land containing approximately 20 acres, most of which is located in the Second Civil District of Hamblen County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County.

In October, 1973, the Petitioners submitted a preliminary plan to the Hamblen County Planning Commission to develop the property into a mobile home park. At this meeting the Planning Commission voted to preliminarily approve the plan but advised the Petitioners that before final approval could be given they must comply with the provisions of an ordinance which had been recently passed by the Hamblen County Quarterly Court governing mobile home parks.

The ordinance in question is an ordinance passed by the Quarterly Court in pursuance of Chapter 350 of the Private Acts of 1968 as amended by Chapter 38 of the Private Acts of 1973. The ordinance provides regulations and standards for mobile home parks located in Hamblen County outside the city limits of Morristown. The ordinance outlines some 15 provisions which must be met in order to qualify for a mobile home park permit. These items include size of lots, width of streets, setback requirements, garbage facilities, availability of water supply, sewage and septic tank requirements, parking space for automobiles, etc.

On November 20, 1973, the Petitioners appeared before the Planning Commission with their final plans for the mobile home park and requested a permit. The record indicates that the Petitioners had met or exceeded the minimum requirements set forth in the ordinance. However, there were in attendance at this meeting a large number of people who owned homes in subdivisions adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed mobile home park who were opposed to the Planning Commission's issuing a permit. Although those appearing in opposition to the issuance of the permit advanced several theories for their opposition, such as overcrowding the schools in the area, increasing traffic congestion, increase in crime, possible sanitation hazards, etc., no competent proof was offered to support any of these theories. The main thrust of the opponents was that they lived in good-class, highly restricted subdivisions and the location of a mobile home park nearby would substantially decrease the value of their properties.

At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission, by a vote of four to two, denied Petitioners' permit. Each member of the Commission was asked to give the reason for his vote before voting. The following appears in the minutes of that meeting:

'Mr. Duggan Bradley stated, we do not have zoning in the county, though we have taken some action tonight hopefully giving the County Court a chance to zone the county. Mr. Bradley then stated, that if the property was zoned residential and the developers ask for rezoning for a trailer park he would have to vote no, but as Mr. Dugger said, the Planning Commission's power is to regulate subdivisions and mobile home parks, and it is not for the Planning Commission to decide whether the mobile home park would create a nuisance, that is a court action. The Planning Commission determines whether the developer meets the regulations, and if the developer does not meet the regulations the Planning Commission still has action, but the developers do have a plan that is more then adequate, it has surpassed the regulations in every area and because they have met and passed the regulations, Mr. Bradley stated he must vote yes.

'Mr. James Helton voted yes for the same reasons. Mr. Helton stated the people in this district in question were the people who elected him. They elected him to do what he thought was right and he had studied the plan and it meets all the requirements. Mr. Helton stated he did not like the proposed park either and if he lived in the area in question he would not like the proposal but he would still have to vote yes because the plan meets all the regulations.

'Mr. Wilbur Purkey voted no for the residents present at the meeting. Mr. Purkey stated he was sure Mr. Harrell and his people would do exactly as they say but his vote was still no.

'Mr. Ayers Porter, Jr. voted no. Mr. Porter stated that he represented the County Quarterly Court and he did not have any apologies for any one. He was voting the way he saw fit.

'Mr. Willis Foshie voted no. Mr. Foshie stated that not knowing the effect on the safety, morals, and convience (sic) of the residents this plan is going to have, his vote was no.

'Mr. William South stated the Commissioners were not computers and if they were, they could be programmed for regulations. Mr. South stated the regulations were not to be broken but he based his vote on the statement in the regulations, that the purpose of the ordinance which the Planning Commission goes by is to promote public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and general welfare of the public, by regulation of location and development of mobile home parks.

'Mr. South stated he found no fault with Mr. Harrell's development but he feels if he voted for the plan he would not be promoting the health, safety, etc. so he also voted no.'

Following the action of the Planning Commission, the Petitioners appealed to the Quarterly County Court sitting as a zoning board of appeals. In substance, the same proof was offered before the Quarterly Court as had been offered before the Planning Commission. The record indicates that there were approximately 150 residents of the county present at the hearing in opposition to the issuance of the permit.

At the conclusion of the hearing the members of the Quarterly Court voted seven to six in favor of upholding the ruling of the Planning Commission. No reason was given by any of the members for voting against the issuance of the permit, but a statement made by one of the members immediately before the vote was taken we think is pertinent. 'Mr. Thompson: If we don't consider these people down there, how is the state going to consider us when we are against the prison?'

This court will take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Tennessee had proposed the construction of a state prison in Hamblen County which had been strongly opposed by many citizens of that county, resulting in extensive litigation.

Following the action of the Quarterly Court, the Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Hamblen County. The case was heard by The Honorable Thomas G. Hull, Chancellor, sitting by interchange for Chancellor William H. Inman.

A number of home owners and residents living in the vicinity of the proposed mobile home park were permitted by the Chancellor to file intervening petitions in...