Ready Mix, USA, LLC v. Jefferson County, Tennessee
380 S.W.3d 52
Tenn.2012Background
- Ready Mix, LLC (successor to ALC) acquired Grasselli property with proven mineral reserves for mining/quarrying.
- Jefferson County enacted a zoning ordinance in 1998 restricting the property to agricultural use; prior extraterritorial zoning by Jefferson City was repealed.
- Company began quarrying-related activities before the ordinance's effective date, including blasting, site clearing, road/Ramp construction, and equipment placement.
- Stop-work order issued December 1998; Company filed declaratory judgment in August 1999 seeking protection under 13-7-208 or vested rights, arguing pre-existing use.
- County argued lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies and no pre-existing use; trial court held activities constituted a pre-existing use.
- Court of Appeals reversed, but Tennessee Supreme Court reversed again, reinstating trial court ruling finding pre-existing use under 13-7-208.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies required? | Ready Mix contends exhaustion not required because the issue is legal (applicability of 13-7-208). | County argues exhaustion required before declaratory relief. | Exhaustion not required; issue was legal applicability of 13-7-208. |
| Whether 13-7-208 protects pre-existing operations? | Company established pre-existing use through pre-ordinance activities and reserves. | County contends insufficient activities to constitute in-operation pre-zoning use. | Yes; evidence supports pre-existing use protected by 13-7-208. |
| Role of diminishing assets doctrine in pre-existing use? | Doctrine supports extending pre-existing use for mining reserves. | Doctrine not adopted here; limits on pre-existing use should apply. | Court discussed doctrine but did not adopt it as controlling; relied on evidence of reserves and industry context. |
| Standard of review and burden of proof for 13-7-208 determinations? | Trial court’s factual findings should be sustained if supported by evidence. | Judicial review is de novo on law and factual findings with some deference. | Court applied de novo review on issues of law and earnest review of facts; favored trial court findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hiwassee Vill. Mobile Home Park, LLC, 304 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. 2010) (grandfather clause interpretation; 'in operation' standard; reserves context)
- SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2012) (burden-shifting framework for 13-7-208; pre-existing use analysis)
- SCA Chem. Waste Servs., Inc. v. Konigsberg, 636 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1982) (vested rights doctrine; permits and substantial construction required)
- Du Page v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co., 165 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1960) (diminishing assets concept in mining context)