Wade v. Patterson, No. E2007-02893-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 1/29/2009)
| Decision Date | 29 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. E2007-02893-COA-R3-CV.,E2007-02893-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | DAN WADE, BUILDING COMMISSIONER FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PATTERSON, JR., ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County; No. 06-0707; W. Frank Brown, III, Chancellor.
Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed; Case Remanded.
Steven W. Grant and Catherine Giannasi, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, William J. Patterson, Jr., and Alison B. Patterson.
David W. Norton, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Dan Wade, Building Commissioner for Hamilton County, Tennessee.
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Herschel P. Franks, P.J., and Sharon G. Lee, SP. J., joined.
William J. Patterson, Jr., and his wife, Alison B. Patterson, own a house in Hamilton County. The house is in an R-1 zone (single-family residential district). After the Pattersons moved from this residence, they began renting it to vacationers on a daily/weekly basis. Dan Wade, the Building Commissioner for Hamilton County ("the Commissioner"), informed the Pattersons that such rentals were an impermissible use under the applicable zoning regulations; he instructed them to cease and desist renting their house for commercial purposes. After the Pattersons refused, this litigation ensued. The trial court eventually granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Pattersons' use of their house for commercial purposes violated the applicable zoning regulations. The trial court also rejected the Pattersons' argument that the zoning regulations were unconstitutionally vague as applied to them. After finding that the Pattersons knowingly violated the zoning regulations, the trial court imposed a penalty of $49.99 for each day of a knowing violation, which totaled $22,395.52. The Pattersons appeal. For the reasons discussed at length in this opinion, we find that the zoning regulations are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Pattersons. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed and this case is dismissed.
This case began when the Commissioner filed a complaint against the Pattersons seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. According to the complaint:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are the owner[s] of real property located at 1860 Rivergate Terrace, Soddy Daisy, TN 37379, in Hamilton County, Tennessee. . . . Plaintiff avers that Defendants have for some time maintained their house as a tourist court or tourist home in violation of the Zoning Regulations, and continues [sic] to maintain such activity on said real property illegally and unlawfully. (see Exhibit 1).1
Hamilton County, Tennessee, pursuant to the Public Acts of the State of Tennessee as codified at T.C.A. § 13-3-101, et seq., and § 13-7-101 et seq., has duly enacted, adopted, and published the Zoning Regulations setting forth permitted uses of all real property in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Said Zoning Regulations have been in full force and effect during the violations by the Defendants. Said Zoning Regulations are a matter of public record and copies of same are located in the office of Plaintiff at 123 East 7th Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. The real property as described above has been duly and regularly zoned "R-1," single family residential District with the authorized uses and limitations as set forth in the Zoning Regulations. Defendant's [sic] use of said property as set out above is not allowed in said zone.
Defendants were advised that these activities were in violation of the Zoning Regulations and were given an opportunity to cease the activities maintained in violation of said Zoning Regulations. Defendants have failed to cease such activities and continue same as of the filing of the Complaint.
Pursuant to the statutes of the State of Tennessee, including T.C.A. § 13-7-111, and Article VII, Section 105.3 of the Zoning Regulations, a penalty shall be assessed against any person or persons guilty of violating the Zoning Regulations. The Zoning Regulations further provide that each day an offense is committed shall constitute and be considered a separate offense, and the penalty assessed separately for each such day of violation. . .
Defendants have used this property for a business, which is not authorized in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. Said use violates Article VII, Section 105.3, and according to said Article, the Building Commissioner may institute an injunction action to enjoin such unlawful use. . .
(Paragraph numbering in original omitted; footnote added).
The Commissioner requested that the trial court issue an injunction prohibiting the Pattersons from renting their house in a manner contrary to the zoning regulations. The Commissioner also sought an award of damages in an amount not to exceed $49.99 per day for each day the Pattersons knowingly violated the zoning regulations.
The Pattersons responded to the complaint and denied that they were using their house for a use not permitted by the applicable zoning regulations. The Pattersons asserted, among other things, that Article IV, Section 2.1 of the Hamilton County Zoning Regulations specifically permitted or otherwise authorized a number of business activities in a single-family residential district. The Pattersons later amended their answer to allege that the zoning regulations sought to be enforced by the Commissioner were "unconstitutional as applied to the Defendants."
Both sides of this litigation filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a statement of material facts not in dispute. Given the nature of this case, the competing statements of material facts were quite similar and brief. According to the parties, the undisputed facts are: (1) that the Pattersons own the house at issue; (2) that the house is located in Hamilton County, Tennessee; (3) that the house is zoned R-1 (single-family residential use); and (4) that the Pattersons have been offering the house as a vacation rental and have been doing so since 2006.2
Following a hearing on the parties' competing motions, the trial court filed a very detailed memorandum opinion. The court noted that the parties were in agreement that the material facts were not in dispute and that, therefore, this case presented a question of law suitable for resolution by way of summary judgment. The trial court also stated that the dispositive issue was whether the Pattersons' "rental activities" violated the R-1 zoning ordinance of Hamilton County. The memorandum opinion provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Hamilton County's R-1 zoning provision is found at Article IV, section 200. This provision states, in relevant part:
200. R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS
(1) Single-Family dwellings
(2) Schools
(3) Parks, playgrounds, and community buildings
(4) Churches
(5) Golf courses, except for driving ranges, miniature courses, and other similar commercial operations
(6) Fire halls and other public buildings
(7) Kindergartens operated by religious or governmental agencies
(8) Day care homes
(1) Buildings, structures, and uses customarily incident to any of the above uses, when located on the same lot or tract, and not involving the conduct of a business, subject to the regulations and restrictions of ARTICLES V and VII.
(2) Home occupations, offices, and studios, when situated in the building used by the person engaged in the occupation as his or her private dwelling provided no advertising sign, merchandise, products or equipment is displayed for advertising purposes. (See Definition of Home Occupation).
Thereafter, there follows five separate "additional uses" of R-1 zoned property, which are subject to obtaining a permit. These permitted, additional uses are (1) day care centers, (2) kindergartens, (3) single-wide manufactured homes, (4) planned unit developments, and (5) commercial radio, television, telephone and microwave towers. The other portions of the R-1 zoning regulations do not appear applicable to this controversy.
The definition portions of the regulations, found in Article II of the zoning regulations, are helpful in resolving this controversy. . . [The Commissioner] claims that the Pattersons are using their property as a "Tourist Court" or "Tourist Home". The zoning regulations offer the following definitions of those two terms:
Article IV, Section 1200 of the zoning regulations is entitled C-1 Tourist Court and Motel Commercial District Regulations. . .
[The Commissioner's] position is fairly simple. The renting out of a residential dwelling on a short-term basis is not a permitted use or an accessory use in an R-1 district. A house is not supposed to be a commercial venture for short-term occupants. Therefore, the Pattersons' use is not authorized, i.e., illegal, and must be enjoined.
Mr. Barry Bennett is the executive director of the Regional Planning Agency. The agency assists in writing and interpreting zoning ordinances. Although the zoning regulations permit the renting of one's dwelling in an R-1 zoning district, Mr. Bennett testified:
If the, if the intent is to lease property or rent property for, you know, more or less permanent residential purposes — in other words, the intent of the . . . R-1 zone, for example, is for more or less permanent establishment of a residence, you know, a domicile, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial