John R. Wills, Jr. v. The City of Memphis
457 S.W.3d 30
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- John R. Wills, Jr. owns Lot 94 in the Belle Meade Subdivision in Memphis and sought to subdivide it into two lots (94A and 94B) under the original Unified Development Code (UDC).
- Lot 94 is unusually large for the subdivision and largely fronts Belle Meade Lane; the proposed lots would meet R-10 zoning minimums but differ in width/frontage from typical lots.
- The application was treated as a major preliminary plan under the UDC; the Planning Director prepared a report finding the proposal met technical UDC requirements and LUCB denied the major preliminary plan in June 2011.
- Wills filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Shelby County Chancery Court; the court remanded to the City Council with instructions to grant the subdivision unless noncompliance with zoning was found, and later issued amendments limiting remand evidence.
- On remand, the City Council’s process was confined to the preexisting record; the court later vacated its own finding that the subdivision complied with the UDC and remanded for interpretation of UDC Section 3.9.2 (contextual infill standards).
- This appeal culminates in the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding for City Council reconsideration to determine whether 3.9.2 applies to Lot 94.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3.9.2 contextual infill applies to Lot 94. | Wills: 3.9.2 may or may not apply; record shows ambiguity and surrounding lots may be interpreted as surrounded. | Appellants: Lot 94 is surrounded by developments pre-1950, so 3.9.2 applies and restricts subdivision. | Ambiguity exists; remand to interpret applicability of 3.9.2. |
| Whether the City Council’s denial was supported by substantial evidence. | Wills: Council denial based on neighbor concerns not supported by record evidence. | City: denial tied to neighborhood character under 3.9.2 and other standards. | Remanded for proper interpretation; original denial reversed in part. |
| Whether the LUCB/City Council properly applied UDC or relied on outdated Subdivision Regulations. | Wills: UDC governs; LUCB recommendation failed to reference 3.9.2. | Appellants: Subdivision Regulations may be applicable; 3.9.2 governs infill standards. | Remand to resolve applicability and ensure proper standard is applied. |
| What evidence may be considered on remand regarding 3.9.2 applicability? | Record already contains evidence supporting 3.9.2 applicability. | Evidence beyond the record should not be admitted on remand. | Court allowed remand to determine interpretation; no new evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990) (limits of certiorari review and administrative action standards)
- Abbington Ctr., L.L.C. v. Town of Collierville, 393 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (certiorari review and administrative action standards)
- Steppach v. Thomas, 346 S.W.3d 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (certiorari review; limits on re-weighing evidence)
- 421 Corp. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 36 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (in pari materia interpretation of zoning ordinances; use of standards across code chapters)
- Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012) (definition of material evidence under certiorari review)