ISI Holdings Of TN, LLC v. Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission
M2016-01607-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Mount Pleasant Power System proposed a municipal electrical substation and related facilities (the "Project"), approved by the Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission on December 8, 2015.
- Adjacent landowners ISI Holdings of TN, LLC and Insulating Services, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari and supersedeas in chancery court (Feb 2016), arguing the Project violated local zoning (LM vs. AG) and that notice was inadequate.
- The trial court granted the writs, reviewed the administrative record, and vacated the Planning Commission’s approval as illegal and an abuse of discretion; the supersedeas was retained. Appellants appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the City amended its zoning ordinance (Ordinance 2016-989) to permit public utilities in any zoning district and expressly exempt public utilities from LM restrictions; the Planning Commission reapproved the Project under the Amended Ordinance and construction began.
- Appellees did not timely seek a certiorari challenge to the Planning Commission’s approval under the Amended Ordinance. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as moot based on these post-judgment facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to review the Planning Commission’s approval under Tenn. Code § 13-14-104 | Appellees: writ of certiorari is proper to review final quasi-judicial planning commission decisions. | Appellants: § 13-14-104 provides the exclusive approval mechanism and precludes certiorari review. | The court held certiorari review was available; the Planning Commission’s approval was a final, quasi-judicial decision subject to § 27-9-101 review. |
| Whether the appeal is moot because the City amended the ordinance and the Project was reapproved and constructed | Appellees: Amended Ordinance and reapproval render any relief on appeal pointless; appeal is moot. | Appellants: ordinance challenge is a declaratory judgment action with a longer statute of limitations; not moot. | The court held the appeal was moot—the Amended Ordinance and reapproval eliminated meaningful relief; appellees’ failure to timely challenge the new approval made the appeal moot. |
| Whether any exception to the mootness doctrine requires the court to decide merits | Appellees: no exception applies. | Appellants: asserted public importance and potential repetition warrant review. | The court declined exceptions (public importance, capable of repetition, collateral consequences, voluntary cessation): matter involved private rights and no exceptional public interest. |
| Whether the Power System could obtain damages for the supersedeas issued without bond | Appellants: sought damages for wrongful supersedeas issuance. | Appellees: no damages claim was properly pled below. | The court held any damages claim was waived because Power System never sought damages in trial court; therefore no relief remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County, 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2009) (mootness doctrine and exceptions framework)
- Hooker v. Haslam, 437 S.W.3d 409 (Tenn. 2014) (court discretion to apply mootness exceptions)
- State v. Rodgers, 235 S.W.3d 92 (Tenn. 2007) (courts may not issue advisory opinions)
- Whittemore v. Brentwood Planning Comm’n, 835 S.W.2d 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (planning commission site-approval decisions subject to direct challenge)