Neighbors of Old Hickory v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee
M2016-01815-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Industrial Land Developers, LLC purchased 155 acres in Old Hickory (zoned IG) in 2014 intending to operate a rock quarry with asphalt and concrete batching plants.
- In December 2014 Defendant submitted a final development/site plan and requested zoning approval; the Zoning Administrator issued a certificate of zoning compliance confirming the proposed mineral extraction and listed accessory uses as permitted.
- Defendant obtained a building permit (April 24, 2015) for ancillary office/utility buildings, began construction (footings completed May 15; framing completed June 29), applied for NPDES/mining permits (June), and received a use and occupancy permit for the quarry (August 7, 2015).
- Neighbors of Old Hickory (nearby homeowners) prompted Metro to adopt BL2015-13 (Nov. 20, 2015) adding setback restrictions that would prohibit quarrying at the site.
- Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief/injunction in March 2016; cross-motions for summary judgment followed. The trial court held Defendant had a vested right/preexisting nonconforming use under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-310(b) based on approval of the development plan (and issued building permit), and granted summary judgment for Defendant and Metro.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: vesting occurred via approval of the final development plan before the zoning amendment, and the approved plan included the accessory uses (rock crushing, concrete batching, asphalt mixing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant obtained a vested property right / preexisting nonconforming use preventing enforcement of BL2015-13 | Vesting requires compliance with common-law substantial steps/operation or additional preconditions; site plan and permits were inadequate | Vesting occurs under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-310(b) upon approval of a final development plan (or building permit) before zoning change; Defendant submitted and obtained approval of a final plan and permits before BL2015-13 | Held for Defendant: approval of the final development plan before the ordinance vested the quarry use under § 13-4-310(b) |
| Whether Defendant’s building permit for ancillary buildings alone vested the entire quarry use | Building permit for ancillary structures is insufficient to vest full quarry operation | Building permit (together with site approvals) supports vesting where applicable | Court: building permit for ancillary buildings was not independently sufficient to vest the whole quarry, but vesting was established via the approved final development plan |
| Whether accessory uses (asphalt mixing, concrete batching) were vested | Accessory uses weren’t authorized because building permit references only a "new quarry" and lack specific permits | The final development plan and zoning approval expressly included accessory uses | Held for Defendant: accessory uses included in the approved final development plan were vested |
| Whether additional approvals (e.g., NPDES, mine permit) or actual operation were required to vest rights | Vesting requires regulatory permits or active operation before rezoning | § 13-4-310(b) governs vesting by plan or permit approval; other permits or operation not required to vest under that statute | Held: other environmental permits or actual operation were not required to vest rights under § 13-4-310(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ready Mix, USA, LLC v. Jefferson Cnty., 380 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. 2012) (discusses common-law preexisting nonconforming use standards and substantial steps)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standard and nonmoving-party burden)
- Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)