OPINION
delivered the opinion of the Court,
The Plaintiffs, who own property adjacent to a shooting range, sought declaratory relief from the Defendant property owners and leaseholders of the range. Rutherford County, whose board of commission had passed a resolution to reclassify the property in 1992 to permit usage as a range, was joined as a Defendant. The chancellor ruled that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and granted motions to dismiss filed by each of the Defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the county resolution reclassifying the property was void. We granted this appeal to consider whether the reclassification qualified as a rezoning amendment; if so, whether the deviation by the Rutherford County legislative body from the issue considered by its planning commission subjected the ordinance to a declaration of void ab initio; and, finally, whether the record establishes circumstances which might preclude the Plaintiffs from a remedy. Because the reclassification qualified as a zoning amendment, the deviation by the county from the proposal before the planning commission was substantial, and because there are-no circumstances in the record which might preclude the Plaintiffs relief, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the chancery court.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
There was no transcript of the hearing on the motions to dismiss. The pleadings and supporting documentation provide the factual and procedural background, which is largely undisputed. The Defendants, Tommy G. Jackson and his wife, Susanne, are owners of 108.1 acres of land located at 8890 Big Springs Road in Rutherford County. The Plaintiffs, Steven A. Edwards, Sally Edwards, Fran Lovell, Tonia Nadeau, and JoAnne M. Batey, are owners of neighboring property. In 1992, the Jackson property was zoned “Residential 20” under the Rutherford County Zoning Resolution. On October 2 of that year, the Jacksons filled out a two-page application form with the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission seeking permission to use a portion of their property as a shooting range. They sought approval for “one skeet field and one trap field, in future possibly more skeet fields and trap fields.” The content of the application specifies that the Jacksons intended to dedicate ten acres of the property to the range immediately and planned no growth for a ten-year period. The Jacksons did not indicate whether they had any desire to increase the size of the range after that period of time. The notation “R-20 to S-7997,” in apparent reference to the existing zoning classification and that sought by the application, was hand-written at the bottom of the form.
Eight days after the filing, the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission published a “Legal Notice of Public Hearing” in The Daily News Journal of Murfreesboro regarding “[a] request submitted by Tommy Jackson to reclassify a ten acre parcel from R-20 to Service 7997 to allow a skeet and trap field.” The property was described as “located on Big *281 Springs Road as referenced by Tax Map 173, Parcel No. 16.02, as recorded in [D]eed [B]ook 248, page 170 in the Rutherford County Register of Deed[s’] office.” The notice included an announcement of a public hearing before the Rutherford County Board of Commission.
A regular meeting of the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission was held prior to the public hearing. Several neighboring property owners voiced opposition to the Jacksons’ request for reclassification. The minutes of the October 19, 1992, meeting provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
Location: Big Springs Road, Tax Map 173, Parcel Number 16.02. Mr. Jackson requested reclassification of a 10 acre parcel from Residential 20 to Service 7997 to allow skeet and trap fields.
Mr. Jackson stated that the skeet and trap fields will be a private club. He said that [there] will be no alcoholic beverages on the property. He stated that up to five members would be shooting at one time and the rest would wait at the clubhouse. The operating hours would be from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and from 12:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays. They plan to have no lighting.
[[Image here]]
During the public hearing, three neighboring property owners expressed a variety of concerns about the noise. Two individuals spoke in favor of the operation. The eleven planning commissioners in attendance unanimously approved the application subject to the conditions that there be no lighting, no alcoholic beverages, and no shooting after 7 p.m.
While the agenda of the Rutherford County Board of Commission meeting for November 9, 1992, also included a public hearing on the Jackson rezoning request, it appears that no one spoke in opposition to the request. Following the public hearing, however, and for reasons apparently unknown to the parties, the board of commission adopted a resolution prepared by the executive director of the planning commission which included a description of ninety acres of the Jacksons’ land, rather than the ten acres described on the application and recommended by the planning commission. The body of the resolution, which acknowledged the public hearing and the planning commission actions, provided, in part, as follows:
The Zoning Map of Rutherford County be amended by reclassifying from Residential 20 to Service 7997 as referenced by Tax Map 173, Parcel Number 16.02, and starting from a pin in Beginning at a pin in Big Springs Road S Io 34 40 E 795.8 to a pin S 15° 13 20 W 342.8 to a pin by a 18 Hickory S 23° 4 31 W 321.4 to a pin S 6° 15 W 537.2 to a pin S 84° 7 E 1071.4 to a pin S 82° 49 E 126.15 to a pin N 11° 40 72 W 2139.72 to a pin N 87° 7 W 207.45 to a pin N 86° 43 W 845.65 containing 90 acres more or less and hereby established upon Zoning Map 173 on file as reclassification request A-286 at the Rutherford County Planning Department. The reclassification is approved with the following conditions: no artificial lighting, alcoholic beverages, or shooting after 7 p.m.
(Emphasis added).
From 1992 to 1999, the Jacksons operated a shooting range on ten acres of their property. They then leased the shooting range to the Defendant, Alan Loveless, who conducted business as Big Springs Clay Target Sports (“Loveless”). From 1999 to 2001, Loveless continued to operate the range on the original ten-acre site. Later in 2001, however, he built shooting platforms extending beyond the initial boundaries of the business. When the Plaintiff, Steven Edwards, inquired about *282 the expansion, Aaron Holmes, Rutherford County’s Planner, confirmed that the range was limited to ten acres. Several months later, however, Holmes notified Edwards that the county records indicated that ninety acres had been rezoned. Loveless then initiated a full scale expansion of the gun range operation.
A. Action in the Trial Court
In 2003, the Plaintiffs, all of whom own property near the Jackson tract, filed this declaratory judgment action in an effort to determine the propriety of the expansion. The Defendants include Loveless, the Jacksons, and Nancy Allen, who, as Mayor of Rutherford County, was joined in an official capacity. The Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the 1992 reclassification violated the Rutherford County Zoning Resolution and that the 1992 notice of hearing violated the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-105.
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming protection by the sixty-day statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 27-9-101, -102 (2000), the one-year statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104 (2000), and the ten-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110 (2000). The Defendants also maintained that their reliance on the validity of the ordinance, coupled with the passage of time, qualified as a defense to an attack based upon procedural deficiencies. The Defendants further contended that the Plaintiffs had notice that Loveless was using more than ten acres as early as 2000 and stressed that the Plaintiffs had delayed filing suit for well over a year after the county planner informed them in 2002 that ninety acres of the property, rather than ten, had been rezoned. In a “catchall” paragraph in Defendant Allen’s motion, the following additional defenses were asserted: (1) failure to join indispensable parties, (2) acquiescence, (3) waiver, (4) estoppel, (5) laches, (6) failure to file an administrative appeal, (7) failure to mitigate, (8) lack of “special injury,” and (9) coming to a nuisance. In their motions to dismiss, the Jacksons and Loveless adopted and incorporated Allen’s motion.
In response, the Plaintiffs insisted that the statute of limitations was tolled until they received actual notice of the action by the county board and contended that their suit was not barred even though it was filed more than ten years after the reclassification. The Plaintiffs argued that they did not know and could not have reasonably discovered that the board of commission had rezoned ninety acres instead of the ten-acre tract until Loveless initiated his plan to expand the size of the gun range beyond the original ten-acre parcel and the county planner expressed the view that the expansion was lawful. The Plaintiffs asserted that they had reasonably relied upon the newspaper notice which provided that only ten acres of the Jacksons’ 108 acres would be used for the gun range. In addition, the Plaintiffs contended that no statute of limitations can prevent them from seeking a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the zoning amendment, which because of its ineffective notice, is not only invalid now but was invalid from its inception.
After the hearing on the motions to dismiss, the chancellor concluded that the suit was filed after the ten-year statute of limitations, the longest possible period as set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110 (2000). In consequence and without specifically determining which period of limitations applied, the chancellor ruled that the time within which to file the *283 suit had not been tolled “under the terms of any discovery rule” because “the decision of the County body was in fact the subject of public record.” The motions to dismiss were granted and the board of commission was excused from compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-105, which establishes the procedure by which zoning ordinances must be amended.
B. Ruling by the Court of Appeals
On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the chancellor’s ruling, holding that the 1992 zoning resolution was void ab initio because the board of commission failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-105. The court ruled the declaratory judgment action was not subject to any statute of limitation, concluding that “the passage of time is meaningless.” Because there was a failure to meet the mandatory statutory notice requirements for the entire ninety acres and because the departure from the ten-acre request was so substantial, the Court of Appeals characterized the resolution by the board of commission, absent prior review by the planning commission, as an ultra vires exercise of zoning power. The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court, however, describing its determination as within the context of a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion only and without prejudice to the rights of any party to further develop the record after remand.
Our Court of Appeals, which also concluded that the 1992 resolution qualified as a rezoning or reclassification amending the zoning map, relied in great measure on
DeLucia v. Town of Jamestown,
if the local legislature is free to make substantial alterations in either the proposed map or ordinance without again giving notice and conducting a public hearing, the holding of such hearing becomes meaningless. Having heretofore held ... that such public notice and hearing are conditions precedent to the local legislature’s jurisdiction to take final action, we conclude that the alterations to the proposed map and ordinance in the instant case, if substantial, were made in excess of the Jamestown Town Council’s jurisdiction.
Id. at 640 (emphasis added).
The Jacksons and Mayor Allen, not joined in the application for permission to appeal by Loveless, contend that the “Rutherford County Land Use Application Form” was not a request for rezoning but sought instead only a special exception or conditional use permit to allow skeet and trap shooting. These Defendants argue that prior review by the planning commission is not required for such a use, as a “special exception” denotes a species of administrative permission which allows an owner to put his property to a use which zoning regulations expressly permit under certain conditions specified in such regulations themselves. See 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 225 (1976). The “Service 7997” classification in Rutherford County allows for “miscellaneous amusement and recreation services, membership sports and recreation clubs.” The Defendants assert that the special exception or conditional use permit process qualifies as an administrative function and the usual safeguards afforded prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance are unnecessary. In the alternative, the Defendants contend that the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a procedurally defective reclassification is void from its inception could create chaos for counties which have failed to follow with precision the statutory procedure when adopting zoning changes.
*284 II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss seeks only to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the Plaintiffs’ proof.
See Bell ex rel. Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A.,
B. Relevant Code Provisions
Part 1 of Chapter 7 of Tennessee Code Annotated pertains to county zoning and, in 1992, was codified in sections 13-7-101 through -116. A county acquires its power to enact zoning regulations from the state.
Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville,
Although the county legislative body has the power to amend zoning ordinances, the amendment must first be submitted to the regional planning commission. Id. (1992). Without prior submission, the amendment is of no effect. Id. The planning commission’s authority is limited to approval, disapproval, or suggestions, and if the planning commission disapproves, the proposal may nevertheless be considered and approved by the county legislative body. Id.
Inasmuch as zoning laws are in derogation of the common law and operate to deprive a property owner of a use of land that would otherwise be lawful, such laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner.
State ex rel. Wright v. City of Oak Hill,
There are two reported decisions from the Court of Appeals that are pertinent to the issues before us. First, in
State ex rel. SCA Chem. Servs., Inc. v. Sanidas,
“Procedural requirements are considered by the courts to be safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power. Failure to comply with such procedural requirements has been regarded not only as an ultra vires act on the part of municipal legislators, but also as a denial of due process of law. Indeed, a statute or ordinance which fails to require legislative notice and a hearing prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance may be regarded as invalid for failure to require procedure which comports with due process of law.”
Id. at 564 (quoting 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.03 (1976)).
In
Hutcherson v. Criner,
the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered an amendment to a zoning ordinance that was enacted following a published notice that was “misleading and failed to give the necessary information to the interested parties.”
“The procedural steps which the legislatures have put in place in the form of enabling statutes governing the enactment of zoning ordinances usually are regarded as mandatory, and a failure substantially to comply with such requirements renders ... the zoning ordinance invalid.”
Id. at 134 (quoting 83 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 581 (1992)).
C. Special Exception or Conditional Use Permit v. Zoning
The Rutherford County Zoning Resolution divides the unincorporated lands of the county into five classes of districts: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Flood Hazard, and Mobile Home Park. As pointed out by the Plaintiffs, “Service 7997” is not a zoning classification. The term is derived from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, “which is referenced in the Rutherford County Zoning Resolution but is used only to set out land uses that the Board of Zoning Appeals can consider in connection with conditional use permit applications.”
Crockett v. Rutherford County,
No. M2000-01405-COA-R3-CV,
In
Cherokee Country Club,
this Court stated that “[t]he precise contours of determining when an ordinance is a zoning ordinance, and thus subject to statutory zoning requirements ... are difficult to draw or define.”
In
Crockett,
our Court of Appeals considered a similar zoning issue involving Rutherford County. The. board of commission rezoned a parcel of land from “Residential R-20” to “Communications 4899.”
“Communication 4899” is not a zoning classification at all. The “Communication 4899” classification ... is used only to set out land uses that the Board of Zoning Appeals can consider in connection with conditional use permit applications. The [Standard Industrial Classification] Manual lists classes of economic activities permitted within various zoned districts. This “Communication 4899” classification is the only such zoning district in Rutherford County....
Id.
In
Crockett,
the Court of Appeals addressed the issue as a zoning question, not a special exception or conditional use permit issue. It also observed that requests for special exception or conditional use permits are to be taken before the board of zoning appeals, a body authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-107 for the purpose of making “special exceptions to the terms of the zoning regulations in harmony with their general purpose and intent.”
See
TenmCode Ann. § 13-7-107. That the request for reclassification in this case was presented to the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission rather than a board of zoning appeals supports the conclusion that the Jacksons had sought a rezoning, not a special exception or conditional use permit. Further, the request to allow a for-profit shooting range on property zoned as Residential 20 for single family dwellings “substantially affects” the use of the land, the test this Court specifically approved in
Cherokee Country Club. Cherokee Country Club,
As indicated, that statute prescribes the method by which a zoning ordinance may be amended. In 1992, the public notice requirements for rezoning proposals were set forth as follows:
13-7-105. Amendments of zoning ordinance provisions — Procedure.—(a) The county legislative body may from time to time, amend the number, shape, boundary, area or any regulation of or within any district or districts or any other provision of any zoning ordinance; but any such amendment shall not be made or become effective unless the same be first submitted for approval, disapproval or suggestions to the regional planning commission of the region in which the territory covered by the ordinance is located, and, if such regional planning commission disapproves within thirty (30) days after such *287 submission, such amendment shall require the favorable vote of a majority of the entire membership of the county legislative body.
(b)(1) ... before finally adopting any [proposed zoning] amendment, the county legislative body shall hold a public hearing thereon, at least thirty (30) days’ notice of the time and place of which shall be given by at least one (1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Any such amendment shall be published at least once in the official newspaper of the county or in a newspaper of general circulation in the County.
TenmCode Ann. § 13-7-105 (1992).
In
Westland West Cmty. Ass’n v. Knox County,
[w]hether the revised proposal must then be resubmitted to the regional planning commission is contingent upon: (1) the gravity of the revision(s), and (2) whether the board’s recommendations would have been altered by the revision(s). If the revision is inconsequential and would not have altered the board’s recommendation, resubmission is not mandated. If, however, the revisions) substantially alters the initial proposal, the proper inquiry is: (1) whether there is a detrimental impact on those who would oppose the proposal; and (¾) whether the board’s recommendations would have been altered by the revision(s). An affirmative answer to either question mandates resubmission.
Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
The Defendants, while acknowledging that the revision from ten to ninety acres may indeed qualify as “substantial,” nevertheless assert that the determination depends upon the facts and cannot be determined on appeal as a matter of law. In this case, of course, there has been no trial. The hearing on the motions for dismissal was not transcribed. Consequently, the evidentiary record is limited. This does not mean, however, that a remand on this issue is always necessary.
In
Wilgus v. City of Murfreesboro,
for example, the Court of Appeals limited its examination to the face of the ordinance.
*288 If a proposed zoning ordinance is amended so substantially that a new proposal is, in effect, created we think it clear that both the state statute and municipal code provision require it to be submitted to the planning commission for its consideration before the municipal legislative body may finally act upon it....
The purpose of requiring submission to the planning commission is to give the legislative body the advantage of the commission’s expertise on land use planning with respect to the proposal that it must either adopt or reject.... The test [for resubmission] is whether the revision is so substantial as to create a strong probability that the commission’s recommendation would have been affected by the revision. If the change is both inconsequential and produces no detrimental effects to those who would oppose it, then the revised proposal is not required to be resubmitted.
Id. at 53-54 (emphasis added).
Similarly, in the case before us, the Court of Appeals concluded that it could not reasonably be found that the deviation was insubstantial. We must agree. In our view, the unexplained, nine-fold alteration to the “rezoning request” was so substantial that there should have been a resubmission of the proposed amendment to the planning commission.
See State ex rel. Browning-Ferris Indus.,
D. “Presumption of Validity” v. “Void ab initio’VStatute of Limitations
Because the zoning ordinance has been in effect over a long period of years, the
*289
Defendants argue that a presumption of validity should apply. Under the “presumption of validity” theory, an ordinance is deemed to have effect until invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Nullification of the ordinance is prospective only. A basic rationale for the presumption of validity appears to be the avoidance of personal liability after good faith reliance upon a facially valid legislative enactment.
See
1 J. Sutherland,
Statutes and Statutory Construction
§ 2:7 (N. Singer 6th ed.2000). By comparison, under the “void ab initio” doctrine, an invalid statute or ordinance is treated as though it never existed. 0. Field,
The Effect of an Unconstitutional Statute,
4-5 (1935);
see Cumberland Capital Corp. v. Patty,
The void ab initio doctrine possibly originated in the case of
Marbury v. Madison,
in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void.”
The void ab initio doctrine is still recognized as valid in other jurisdictions. For example, in
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Dover Twp.,
a case in which the plaintiff alleged violation of due process in the enactment of an ordinance, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the action was not barred by a statute of limitations because the procedural infirmities, if proven, would render the ordinance void ab initio.
*290 Other state courts have concluded that the declaration of a statute or ordinance as void ab initio may cause injustice or inconvenience. See G. Gunther, Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law 34-36 (9th ed.1975). Based upon considerations of public policy, other jurisdictions have refused to permit attacks upon long-standing zoning provisions and have declined to implement the void ab initio remedy. To illustrate, in Struyk v. Samuel Braen’s Sons, a New Jersey court found as follows:
The ordinance has been in effect for ten years and “[pjublic policy forbids an attack based upon informalities and irregularities in the procedure which led to the adoption of the ordinance, when it has been accepted as a valid enactment for a long period of time, and property owners affected by it have conformed to its provisions, and have fixed their status accordingly.”
In the orderly process of handling real estate transactions where they are affected by provisions of zoning ordinances and amendments, it is essential that the members of the general public and the people buying or selling real estate must be able to rely on the validity of the public record, to-wit: a zoning ordinance and the zoning map issued in accordance with such zoning ordinance, without the necessity of poring over musty files and searching newspaper morgues, going back years in order to avoid a claim by other persons that there was a failure to comply with some technical requirement of the law in the adoption of the ordinance in question. To hold otherwise would bring about chaotic conditions beyond all comprehension in the transfer and usage of real estate in any community having a zoning ordinance affecting such land.
Nevertheless, Tennessee cases have long recognized the doctrine of void ab initio.
In re Boyd,
In the zoning context, however, our Court of Appeals has carved out an exception to the general rule of application. “ ‘[A]fter long ... acquiescence in the substance of an ordinance, public policy does not permit such an attack on the validity of the ordinance because of procedural irregularities.’ ”
Hutcherson,
Additional support for the exception is found in
Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County v. Hudson,
The modern trend is to find that the void ab initio approach fails when there has been reliance on an ordinance that has given rise to vested rights.
See
1 J. Sutherland,
Statutes and Statutory Construction
§ 2.07 (C. Sands 4th ed.1985); Note,
State v. Douglas: Judicial ‘Revival” of an Unconstitutional Statute,
34 La. L.Rev. 851, 852-53 (1974). In
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank,
The actual existence of a statute, prior to [a determination of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have *292 consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, — with respect to particular relations ... and particular conduct. ... Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and its previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal, and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.
Id.
at 374,
In
Cumberland Capital,
decided shortly after
Lemon,
this Court declared the Industrial Loan and Thrift Act unconstitutional and announced a new rule regarding the calculation of interest rates.
We note that our sister state of Kentucky, recognizing the potential harm in the application of the void ab initio doctrine, has mitigated the requirement of procedural compliance by statute:
[N]o ... zoning regulation ... shall be invalidated in its entirety for failure to strictly comply with any procedural provision of this chapter or ... in making any publication required to be made under this chapter, unless a court finds that the failure to strictly comply ... results in material prejudice to the substantive rights of an adversely affected person and that such rights cannot be adequately secured by any remedy other than invalidating the ... zoning regulation ... in its entirety.
Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 100.182 (2005).
As indicated, this case is before this Court as a result of the chancellor’s grant of the Defendants’ Rule 12.02(6) motions to dismiss for the failure by the Plaintiffs to state a claim for relief. The allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Before we can resolve the statute of limitations issues raised in the *293 Rule 12.02(6) motions, our first responsibility is to determine the validity of the 1992 resolution by the Rutherford County Board of Commission. The two issues are inextricable.
In the matter before us, it is undisputed that the Jacksons dedicated only ten acres to their shooting range until 1999. Although the facts available are limited, it appears that there was a general lack of awareness that the ordinance addressed ninety acres rather than ten until Loveless sought to expand the operation. There was no presentation of proof by either side. This record, therefore, does not establish the requisite public or private reliance for an exception to the application of the void ab initio doctrine. There has been no indication of either longstanding acquiescence or extensive public reliance on the ordinance at issue. In order to invoke the exception to the doctrine, equitable principles must favor the party relying upon the validity of the ordinance. That reliance must be apparent and the expense must be significant. The circumstances must justify the “exercise of ... equitable powers to ameliorate the doctrine’s sometimes harsh results.”
Perlstein v. Wolk,
Because the altered amendment was substantial and was not returned to the planning commission for further consideration, the Rutherford County Board of Commission had no jurisdiction to rezone ninety acres when the public notice described ten. Under these circumstances, the general rule must apply. Because the ordinance is void ab initio, a statute of limitations is no defense.
III. Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the ruling of the chancery court, is affirmed. We specifically concur with this assessment:
While it would appear from the record made in this case that the void character of the November 9,1992, Zoning Resolution cannot be successfully challenged under any facts that can be developed upon remand, such a determination at this time ... would be improper.
The case is, therefore, remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal are assessed against Rutherford County, and its surety, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Notes
.
See also Urbanowicz v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Town of Enfield,
.
See also Potomac Greens Assoc. P'ship v. City Council of City of Alexandria,