Michael Cobble v. Greene County, Tennessee
559 S.W.3d 118
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Earl Scott and Joetta Moore (Moores) erected a prefabricated aluminum carport in front of their R-1 zoned lot in Mountain View Terrace, violating front/side setback requirements; they halted construction and applied for a variance.
- First variance (Jan. 22, 2014) was denied by the Greene County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
- Moores filed a second variance (Feb. 28, 2014) reducing the front encroachment by seven feet so the carport would not occupy a public right-of-way; BZA granted the variance with conditions (no permanent foundation, no walls).
- Neighbors Michael and Lora Cobble (Cobbles) opposed the second application and sued via writ of certiorari in Greene County Chancery Court challenging the BZA decision.
- The Trial Court upheld the BZA, finding the second application materially different from the first and that material evidence supported the grant; the Cobbles appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed that res judicata did not bar the second application but reversed the Trial Court’s affirmation of the variance for lack of material evidence that the Moore property was uniquely burdened.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cobbles) | Defendant's Argument (Moores/BZA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the Moores’ second variance application | Second application is same relief and should be barred; Moores should have sought certiorari after first denial | Second application materially differed (7 ft reduction avoiding right-of-way); not precluded | Not barred: second application was sufficiently different to avoid res judicata |
| Whether BZA’s grant was supported by material evidence | No unique or exceptional property conditions shown; hardship appears self-created | Staff report and BZA found significant slope, corner-lot constraints, paper street and topographic hardship | Reversed: record lacked material evidence that the lot was meaningfully unique; hardship was not established |
| Whether courts should reweigh BZA factual findings on certiorari review | (Cobbles) limited role but claim lack of evidentiary support warrants reversal | (BZA) courts must defer unless decision lacks material evidence | Court applied de novo legal review for sufficiency of evidence and concluded insufficient material evidence existed |
| Whether conditions imposed by BZA remedied concerns (public detriment/safety) | Conditions insufficient to justify variance absent proper hardship | BZA imposed conditions (no foundation, no walls) to mitigate harm | Conditions do not cure the principal defect: lack of material evidence of exceptional property hardship |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell Enters., Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (administrative adjudications operate as res judicata regarding matters litigated or that could have been litigated)
- Leonard Plating Co. v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 213 S.W.3d 898 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (writ of certiorari review: court asks whether record contains material evidence to support agency decision)
- Harding Academy v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 222 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2007) (scope of judicial review under writ of certiorari is extremely limited)
- McClurkan v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals for Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 565 S.W.2d 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) (variance justified by peculiarities of land, not self-created hardships)
- Houston v. Memphis & Shelby County Bd. of Adjustment, 488 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972) (mere pecuniary loss insufficient to justify variance)
- Wilson County Youth Emergency Shelter, Inc. v. Wilson County, 13 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (issue of sufficient evidence to support zoning decisions is a question of law)
- MC Properties, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 994 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (review of zoning board decisions and standard for appellate review)