Hutcherson v. Criner
Decision Date | 20 December 1999 |
Citation | 11 S.W.3d 126 |
Parties | Wiley HUTCHERSON, Western Tennessee Enterprises, Inc., and Landfill, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rozell CRINER, Lauderdale County Executive, and the Lauderdale County Commission, acting on behalf of Lauderdale County, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Jerry D. Kizer, Jr., William C. Bell, Jr., Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Jackson, for Appellants.
J. Thomas Caldwell, Ripley Kemper B. Durand, Michael E. Keeney, Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell Memphis, for Appellees.
Application for Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court December 20, 1999.
CRAWFORD, P.J., Western Section.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Wiley Hutcherson, Western Tennessee Enterprises, Inc., and Landfill, Inc., appeal the final decree of the trial court dismissing the complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Defendants-Appellees, Rozelle Criner, Lauderdale County Executive, and the Lauderdale County Commission.
This case arises from Mr. Hutcherson's attempt to construct and operate a commercial, sanitary landfill on a portion of his 322 acre farm known as the Love Farm in Lauderdale County, Tennessee.
In 1984, the Lauderdale County Commission (County Commission) adopted a comprehensive zoning resolution for Lauderdale County. The 1984 Zoning Resolution provided that sanitary landfills were a "use permitted on appeal" in both FAR districts and I districts.1 A "use permitted on appeal" means that a use is permitted in that district, however, in order to establish such a use, a landowner must submit an application to the Lauderdale County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to obtain approval.2 At the time of the passage of the 1984 Zoning Resolution, Mr. Hutcherson's farm was zoned FAR, and the only landfill within Lauderdale County was zoned FAR.3
Mr. Hutcherson has been involved in the scrap metal business for several years. As part of this business, Mr. Hutcherson utilizes a shredder which processes cars by breaking them into fist-size pieces. This process generates a waste product known as "shredder fluff." Because of a need to dispose of this waste, Hutcherson decided to construct a landfill on his farm. In November 1986, Hutcherson Scrap Company, Inc. was granted a permit from the State of Tennessee to build this landfill, and, in January 1987, a permit was obtained from the BZA. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hutcherson constructed this landfill on about 3 to 4 acres of the farm. Neither the State permit nor the BZA permit placed any restrictions on the size of the landfill.
In 1989, Mr. Hutcherson deeded a 9.8 acre parcel of his farm, which encompassed the 3 to 4 acre landfill, to Landfill, Inc., a closely held corporation owned by Mr. Hutcherson and his wife. In 1990, Mr. Hutcherson commenced the process of obtaining a State permit in the name of Western Tennessee Enterprises, Inc. (WTE)4 for a 184 acre sanitary landfill on the Love Farm. This proposed landfill would be a commercial landfill as opposed to the existing landfill which is a private landfill for shredder fluff.
In August 1991, the County Commission passed an amendment to the 1984 Zoning Resolution. The 1991 Amendment divided the I classification into two districts—I-1 and I-2.5 The 1991 Amendment also permitted sanitary landfills as a "use permitted on appeal" in I-2 districts, added the definitions of "Sanitary Landfill—Commercial" and "Sanitary Landfill—Public" to the "Definitions" section, and added standards for sanitary landfills. Furthermore, the County Landfill was rezoned to I-2 by the 1991 Amendment and constituted the only I-2 district in Lauderdale County while Mr. Hutcherson's farm remained zoned as FAR. The County Commission submits that the 1991 Amendment was also intended to remove landfills from FAR districts but that such language was inadvertently omitted.
In December 1991, during Mr. Hutcherson's attempt to obtain a State permit for the 184 acre landfill, the County Commission passed a resolution adopting the "Jackson Law."6 The "Jackson Law" at this time was a state law that allowed counties without county-wide zoning to control landfill development by requiring county approval.7 Shortly thereafter, the State put WTE's permit application on hold because according to the State's procedure, once the State is put on notice that a county had adopted the "Jackson Law," the State could not review the permit application until the State received notice of county approval.
In an attempt to receive county approval, Mr. Hutcherson was notified by the Lauderdale County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) that he would need to have the 184 acres rezoned to I-2 in order to operate a landfill on such property. In reliance, Mr. Hutcherson submitted an application to the Planning Commission to have this property rezoned. The Planning Commission subsequently voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the County Commission. The County Commission then notified Mr. Hutcherson that it would not review his rezoning request until he received a State permit. Thus, Mr. Hutcherson withdrew his rezoning request, and the State subsequently resumed its review of WTE's permit application.
In November 1992, the County Commission passed another amendment to the 1984 Zoning Resolution. The 1992 Amendment removed sanitary landfills from FAR districts as a "use permitted on appeal." As a result, sanitary landfills were only allowed in I-2 districts.
On November 14, 1994, the State issued a permit to WTE for construction and operation of a sanitary landfill on the 184 acre parcel of Love Farm. Following the receipt of the permit, Mr. Hutcherson applied again to the Planning Commission requesting that the 184 acres be rezoned. The Planning Commission once again voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request. Mr. Hutcherson then submitted his request to the County Commission. In October 1995, after a public meeting, the County Commission voted to deny Mr. Hutcherson's rezoning request.
On December 7, 1995, Mr. Hutcherson and WTE filed the subject complaint against Mr. Criner and the County Commission alleging that the actions and omissions by the defendants amounted to unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious conduct that infringed upon Mr. Hutcherson's and WTE's federal and state constitutional rights.8 The defendants subsequently filed an Objection to Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss based upon a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that no genuine issue of material fact existed in the case. Concomitantly, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Subsequently, Mr. Hutcherson and WTE filed an amended complaint wherein, inter alia, the entire zoning scheme of Lauderdale County was alleged to be invalid due to procedural defects. The defendants then filed an answer to the amended complaint.
In the interim between the filing of the suit and the hearing on the matter, the County Commission, on May 13, 1996, "reaffirmed" the 1984 Zoning Resolution as amended.
On March 9, 1998, a non-jury trial commenced. On June 26, 1998, the trial court entered a final decree denying the injunctive relief that would have permitted Mr. Hutcherson to proceed with his proposed landfill. The decree stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edwards v. Allen
...require procedure which comports with due process of law." Id. at 564 (quoting 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.03 (1976)). In Hutcherson v. Criner, the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered an amendment to a zoning ordinance that was enacted following a published notice that was "mis......
-
Edwards v. Allen, No. M2004-01944-COA-R3-CV (TN 11/28/2005)
...which is dead. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Monroe County, 502 N.E.2d at 1353-54. It is well at this point to discuss Hutcherson v. Criner, 11 S.W.3d 126 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999). In that case, the complaint was filed on December 7, 1995, to enforce provisions of a 1984 zoning resolution together wit......
-
Roten v. City of Spring Hill, No. M2008-02087-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 8/26/2009)
...240 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007); Custom Land Dev. v. Town of Coopertown, 168 S.W.3d 764 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Hutcherson v. Criner, 11 S.W.3d 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Mullins v. City of Knoxville, 665 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App 1983); Merritt v. Wilson Cty Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 656 ......
-
Bryan v. Leach
...S.W.2d at 428 (citations omitted). We affirm the trial court's refusal to modify Father's alimony obligation. See Hutcherson v. Criner, 11 S.W.3d 126, 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) ("This Court will affirm a decree correct in result but rendered upon different . . . II. Child Support Trust Fath......