IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
FILED
July 7, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
FOR PUBLICATION ourt Clerk
Appellate C
WESTLAND WEST COMMUNITY ) Filed: July 7, 1997
ASSOCIATION, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) KNOX CHANCERY
)
v. ) Hon. Sharon Bell, Chancellor
)
KNOX COUNTY, et al., ) No. 03S01-9610-CH-00098
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
FOR APPELLANT: FOR APPELLEE:
George W. Morton, Jr. Courtney N. Pearre
Knoxville Knoxville
Michael W. Moyers
Knox County Law Department
Knoxville
OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED HOLDER, J.
OPINION
We granted this appeal to determine whether Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 13-7-105(a) mandates submission of a newly proposed zoning classification
amendment to the regional planning commission following the commission's
rejection of a similar but different proposed classification. The Court of Appeals
held that the statute does not require futile resubmissions of revised proposals.
We, however, find that the proposal in question was not merely a revised prior
proposal but was a new and previously unsubmitted proposal. The statute
clearly mandates submission of new proposals to the regional planning
commission. We reverse the Appellate Court and hold that the new zoning
proposal should have been submitted to the regional planning commission.
BACKGROUND
The appellee, Thomas N. Schriver, filed a rezoning application with the
Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission (“MPC”). His
application sought to amend a tract of land’s zoning from Agriculture ("A") to
Shopping Center (“SC”)1. The MPC unanimously denied Schriver’s requested
change. He then appealed the MPC’s decision to the County Commission.
During the hearing before the County Commission, the appellee
presented a zoning proposal that differed from the proposal he originally
submitted to the MPC. He requested the commission to rezone the property to
1
SC is limited to retail uses. SC limits building height to a maximum of
three stories and is intended for retail developments that generally attract
consumers from the surrounding residential areas.
2
Planned Commercial ("PC")2 as opposed to SC. The County Commission
approved the revised amendment request and rezoned the property as PC.
The appellants, Westland West Community Association, et al., appealed
the commission's zoning decision to the Knox County Chancery Court. They
alleged that the Commission’s decision was void. They argued that Tenn. Code
Ann. § 13-7-105(a)3 mandated that the appellee submit his new proposal to the
MPC prior to seeking review before the County Commission. The chancery court
agreed and held that when the appellee changed his request from SC to PC, he
was required to by statute to resubmit the zoning request to the MPC.
The Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court's decision. They found
that resubmission of the more onerous proposed amendment to MPC would
have been futile due to the MPC's previous determination that "any commercial
zone would be contrary to the . . . Sector plan." Pursuant to Wilgus v. City of
Murfreesboro, 532 S.W.2d 50 (Tenn. App. 1975), the court held that
resubmission is not mandated unless there is "a strong probability that the
2
PC permits extensive commercial services and light distribution centers.
Buildings may exceed four stories in height in land zoned as PC. PC is intended
to draw customers from both outside and inside the immediate residential area.
This attraction of a larger market may increase consumer traffic to the area. The
presence of commercial trucking may also be more prevalent in land zoned as
PC as opposed to SC.
3
Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-105 provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
(a) The county legislative body may from time to time amend the
number, shape, boundary, area or any other provision of any
zoning ordinance; but such amendment shall not be made or
become effective unless that same be first submitted for approval,
disapproval or suggestions to the regional planning commission of
the region in which the territory covered by the ordinance is
located, and, if such regional planning commission disapproves
within thirty (30) days after such admission, such amendment shall
require the favorable vote of a majority of the entire membership of
the county legislative body.
3
[regional planning] commission's recommendation would have been affected by
the revision."
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
The appellants argue that the Court of Appeals erred in focusing its
analysis solely on whether the board's decision would have been the same upon
resubmission. They maintain that the proper inquiry should focus on the gravity
of the revised proposal's changes. Provided the revisions are substantial, Tenn.
Code Ann. § 13-7-105(a) mandates resubmission. We agree in part.
A county legislative body is vested the statutory power to amend zoning
ordinances. Tenn. Code Ann § 13-7-105(a). A proposed zoning amendment,
however, shall neither be granted nor become effective unless the proposed
amendment is first submitted to the regional planning commission. Id. The
regional commission can then either approve, disapprove, or make suggestions.
Id. If the regional commission rejects the proposed amendment, the amendment
may then be submitted to the county legislative body for approval. Id.
Our analysis is guided by the principles of statutory interpretation.
Legislative intent shall be derived from a statute's face when a statute's language
is unambiguous. Hamblen County Educ. Ass'n v. Hamblen County Bd. of Educ.,
892 S.W.2d 428, 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); see also Carson Creek Vac.
Resorts v. Dept. of Rev., 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993) (stating where language
within four corners of statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous ambiguous, intent
shall be derived from statute's face). If a statute's language is expressed in a
manner devoid of ambiguity, courts are not at liberty to depart from the statute's
words. Id. Accordingly, courts are restricted to the "natural and ordinary"
4
meaning of a statute unless an ambiguity necessitates resorting elsewhere to
ascertain legislative intent. Austin v. Memphis Publ. Co., 655 S.W.2d 146, 149
(Tenn. 1983).
We find the statute's language clear. A proposed amendment to a zoning
scheme must first be submitted to the regional planning commission. If a
proposed zoning amendment is not first presented to the regional planning
commission, the county commission is devoid of jurisdiction to act upon the
proposal.
Once a proposed admendment has been submitted to the regional
planning commission, the proposal may be revised. Whether the revised
proposal must then be resubmitted to the regional planning commission is
contingent upon: (1) the gravity of the revision(s), and (2) whether the board's
recommendations would have been altered by the revision(s). Wilgus v. City of
Murfeesboro, 532 S.W.2d 50, 53-54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975). If the revision is
inconsequential and would not have altered the board's recommendation,
resubmission is not mandated. If, however, the revision(s) substantially alters
the initial proposal, the proper inquiry is: (1) whether there is a detrimental
impact on those who would oppose the proposal; and (2) whether the board's
recommendations would have been altered by the revision(s). Id.; State v. Board
of Comm'rs of Knox County Tenn., 806 S.W.2d 181, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
An affirmative answer to either question mandates resubmission.
In the present case, we are not confronted with a mere revision to a
previously proposed zoning amendment. Accordingly, we do not revert to the
test for determining whether a revision was substantial. We are confronted with
an entirely new zoning classification proposal (i.e., a new zoning admendment
5
proposal) which had never been before the regional planning commission. We
find a clear distinction between a newly proposed classification and a previously
submitted classification that has undergone mere revisions. Tennessee Code
Annotated § 13-7-105 mandates submission of the new classification without
further inquiry.
Accordingly, we hold that the proposed zoning change to planned
commercial in the present case must have been presented to the regional
planning commission before the county commission had jurisdiction to act on the
proposal. The county commission's review and approval was, therefore, both
null and void. Costs shall be taxed to the Knox County Board of Commissioners
for which execution may issue if necessary.
Janice M. Holder, Justice
Concurring:
Birch, C.J.
Reid, Drowota and Anderson, JJ.
6