Wills v. City of Memphis

• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J.
• Citation: Wills v. City of Memphis, 457 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. App. 2014)
• Decision Date: 13 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. W2013–01861–COA–R3–CV.,W2013–01861–COA–R3–CV.
• Parties: John R. WILLS, Jr. v. The CITY OF MEMPHIS et al.

457 S.W.3d 30

John R. WILLS, Jr.

v.The CITY OF MEMPHIS et al.

No. W2013–01861–COA–R3–CV.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section, at Jackson.

Assigned on Briefs April 25, 2014.

Aug. 13, 2014.

Jan. 20, 2015.

Allan J. Wade and Brandy S. Parrish, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, The City of Memphis and Memphis City Council.

Ricky E. Wilkins and Sharon H. Loy, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, John R. Wills, Jr.

OPINION

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., and DAVID R. FARMER, J., joined.

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J.

Landowner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, seeking review of the City of Memphis City Council's decision to deny the landowner's petition to subdivide his Belle Meade Subdivision lot into two lots. The trial court reversed the City Council's decision, finding that the landowner had satisfied the requirements for subdivision under the Uniform Development Code, and remanded the case for rehearing before the City Council. On remand, the City Council's review was limited to the record established at the previous hearing. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm in part and vacate in part, and remand to the trial court with instructions to remand to the City Council for reconsideration.

Appellee John R. Wills, Jr. is the owner of Lot 94 in the Belle Meade Subdivision in Memphis. Lot 94 is located at the northwest corner of Poplar Avenue and Belle Meade Lane. Belle Meade Subdivision contains approximately 94 lots and is zoned R–10.¹ R–10 zoning permits single-family homes on lots with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 60 feet.

On April 27, 2011, after a fire destroyed the existing house on the property, Mr. Wills filed an application for subdivision of Lot 94 with the Memphis and Shelby County Office of Planning and Development (“OPD”).² By his application, Mr. Wills sought to have Lot 94 divided into two lots, proposed Lot 94A and proposed Lot 94B. The typical lot in Belle Meade Subdivision is 20,000 square feet, rectangular in shape, and has approximately 100 feet of street frontage. Lot 94 is atypical in that it is one of the largest lots in the Subdivision, containing approximately 31,247 square feet, with 226.98 feet of street frontage on Belle Meade Lane.³ Thus, as Mr. Wills argues, Lot 94 is one of the few (or only) lots in Belle Meade Subdivision that could be divided into two lots that each meet the R–10 zoning restrictions of 10,000 square foot lots, with at least 60 feet of street frontage. According to Mr. Wills' application, Proposed Lot 94A, which would be the corner lot at Poplar Avenue and Belle Meade Lane, would contain 14,004 square feet in area with 116 feet of street frontage. Proposed Lot 94B would contain 16,672 feet, with 104.98 feet of frontage along Belle Meade Lane.

It is undisputed that Mr. Wills' application is governed by the provisions contained in the original version of the Unified Development Code (“UDC”), which was approved by the Memphis City Council and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners in August 2010, and was effective from January 1, 2011 to August 27, 2012. The UDC is the development code for the City of Memphis (together with the Memphis City Council, “Appellants”) and unincorporated Shelby County. Prior to adoption of the UDC by the Memphis City Council and the Shelby County Commission, subdivisions in the City of Memphis were governed by the Subdivision Regulations, which were adopted by the City Council as Ordinance No. 3352 on December 20, 1983 (“Subdivision Regulations”).

Mr. Wills' application was considered a “major preliminary plan,” under Section 9.7.4(B) of the UDC. The UDC delegates review and approval authority for all major preliminary subdivision plans to the Planning Director and the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board (“LUCB”), subject to appeal to the Memphis City Council. The “Planning Director” refers to the director of the Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development a/k/a the Office of Planning and Development (“OPD”). The UDC confers “reviewing authority” on the Planning Director to review and make recommendations regarding major preliminary subdivision plans. The Planning Director may designate a staff member to represent him or her in any function assigned to the Planning Director.

Under Section 9.3.1(B) of the UDC, Mr. Wills was required to attend a mandatory pre-application conference with the Planning Director “to discuss the procedures, standards and regulations required for approval in accordance with this development code.” Mr. Wills was required to submit the complete application, containing all of the information necessary for the Planning Director to “decide whether or not the development as proposed will comply with all of the requirements of this development code.” Section 9.3.3.E(3) provides that “the applicant may rely on the recommendations of the Planning Director as to whether more or less information” is required. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Wills was informed that his application failed to conform to any of the technical requirements of the UDC, or that any further information was required.

After the application is submitted, Section 9.7.7(D) of the UDC provides that:

1. Upon submission of a completed application, the Planning Director may schedule the major preliminary plan for review by the Technical Review Committee. If applicable, the Technical Review Committee shall review the major preliminary plan for consistency with the requirements of this development code.

2. Upon completion of the technical review, the Planning Director may meet with the applicant to discuss any changes in the development design.

3. The Planning Director shall prepare a report that reviews the application in light of comments provided by the Technical Review Committee, any plans to be considered (See Chapter 1.9) and the general requirements of this development code. The report, preliminary plan and any related application materials shall be forwarded to the Land Use Control Board.

In this case, the Planning Director complied with the foregoing sections by preparing a report that expressly provides that “the proposed re-subdivision meets the technical requirements of the Unified Development Code.” Mr. Wills' application then moved to the LUCB for approval.

Section 9.7.7(E) of the UDC outlines the LUCB's action as follows:

1. Not less than 35 or more than 75 days after an application has been determined complete, the Land Use Control Board shall hold a public hearing and Notification.

2. The Land Use Control Board shall approve, approve with conditions, or reject the major preliminary plan after deliberation and prior to the close of the public hearing. The Land Use Control Board may, prior to the close of the public hearing, take the matter under advisement or defer decision until the next regular meeting of the Board.

On June 9, 2011, the LUCB considered Mr. Wills' application and denied it by a vote of 1–8. Thereafter, on or about June 15, 2011, Mr. Wills appealed the LUCB's decision to the Memphis City Council. On August 16, 2011, after due notice was sent to all interested landowners, the Memphis City Council considered Mr. Wills' proposed resolution overturning the LUCB's rejection of his application to re-subdivide Lot 94. The resolution failed by a vote of 3–10.

On November 4, 2011, Mr. Wills filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Shelby County Chancery Court, seeking review of the LUCB and Memphis City Council's rejection of his application. On November 17, 2011, the Chancellor signed a Fiat, ordering the issuance of a writ of certiorari as prayed for by Mr. Wills in his petition. Pursuant to the writ, on December 21, 2011, the City filed the affidavit of Valerie Snipes, Deputy Comptroller for the City of Memphis. Ms. Snipes attached, to her affidavit, a true and exact copy of the City Council's proceedings as maintained by the City Comptroller. The attachments include a certified copy of the Resolutions, approved minutes of the meeting, a written report from the OPD, records from the LUCB, and other documents presented to the Council during the meeting.

The matter was heard by the trial court on April 22, 2013. At that time, the trial court ordered the parties to brief the issue of what evidence the court may consider, the remedies available, and the question of whether Section 3.9.2 of the UDC is applicable. Following the submission of the parties' trial briefs and hearing, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion on July 10, 2013, finding in favor of Mr. Wills and remanding the matter to the City Council with instructions. Specifically, the order states, in relevant part, that:

In its meeting considering this application, the City Council heard from neighboring property owners and their attorney who opposed the application on the ground that the proposed subdivision was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. They described Belle Meade as one of the last existing Memphis neighborhoods with large lots. The neighbors also expressed fears regarding traffic congestion at the intersection of Poplar and Belle Meade Lane where the resubdivision is proposed. The objections raised at the City Council's meeting on August 16th were the same objections and fears raised in 2000 by neighbors when the City Council approved the application to allow the lot directly across the street to be divided into two lots. During its meeting on the instant application, one City Council member who opposed approval of the application stated he grew up in the neighborhood and requested the support of the rest of the City Council members in siding with him and the neighbors. Another City Council member who lives near the Belle Meade subdivision and represents the area on the City Council stated he would be voting with the neighbors and implored his colleagues

...