Case Summaries
of Importance to Counties

2010 Zoning

Smith County Regional Planning Commission v. Hiwassee Village Mobile Home Park, LLC, 35 TAM 5-3—Mobile home park was sued by planning commission for violating the county’s private act regulating mobile home parks. The owner of the mobile home park argued that the regulations in the private act did not apply to the park because the park was in operation prior to enactment of the private act and was thus grandfathered pursuant to T.C.A. 13-7-208(b)(1). The trial court found that the park was not grandfathered because it was not in operation prior to the enactment of the private act. The owner had made some preparations to the property, but had not secured the required permits. The Court of Appeals found that the owner’s work on the property went beyond preparation; however, the Court found that the operation was abandoned after this work was done, and thus, the grandfathering protection was lost. The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed, finding that the park was not grandfathered and was subject to the regulations in the private act. The Court reiterated that the grandfathering provision in T.C.A. 13-7-208 applies to counties as stated in Chadwell v. Knox County, 980 S.W. 2d 378 (Tenn. App. 1998) (January 22, 2010).

Trosper v. Cheatham County Planning Commission, 35 TAM 11-10—Citizens living near a proposed subdivision filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision of the planning commission granting a variance and approving the subdivision. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the citizens did not have standing. This was reversed. The court found that the citizens had alleged a special interest in the decision because it affects the character and nature of the neighborhood. Also, this would be a special injury because of the citizens’ proximity to the subdivision and would not be an injury that is common to the public. Thus, the citizens are “aggrieved” pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-9-101. The court found that there is no requirement under statute or standing doctrine that citizens seeking certiorari review of a decision of a governmental board or commission to grant a variance in a land use case be a party to the hearing or proceeding at issue when they otherwise meet the standing requirements (January 19, 2010).