More on Subdivisions: Hudson v Metro Planning Commission, 2020 WL 7255807 (Tenn. App. 2020)

Hudson is another important case in the area of subdivisions, although it may leave more questions than it answers. The basic question presented to the court was whether the planning commission could deny a subdivision application because it was not consistent with the “harmonious development” of the municipality? Tenn. Code. Ann. § 13-4-303(a).

The subdivision was for a development of 193 single-family homes on 65 acres of land in Davidson County. The Planning Commission rather reluctantly granted approval in the face of significant public opposition, but only after encouragement both from the staff and from the municipal attorney based on compliance with all of the applicable Subdivision Regulations. The trial court found this encouragement to be inappropriate and reversed, essentially concluding that “harmonious development” allowed the Planning Commission to make decisions beyond the scope of the technical requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court, but reversed on the “harmonious development” argument, concluding that the plain language of the statute wasn’t consistent with the trial court’s holding. The statute, by the way, authorizes adoption of subdivision regulations which “may provide the harmonious development of the municipality and its environs…” Thus, whatever the subdivision regulations provide is assumed to promote the harmonious development of the municipality. The Planning Commission has no authority to go beyond the requirements of those Subdivision Regulations. The subdivision regulations themselves are a significantly important part of the process of obtaining subdivision approval.

So far so good. Most land use planning lawyers felt that that was the appropriate interpretation of the statute. The court however went on, noting that the Metro Subdivision Regulations required compliance with the “adopted General Plan, including its constituent elements, and the Major Street Plan.” It concluded that:

the Planning Commission had the authority to determine whether the concept plan complied with the "adopted General Plan." Thus, the planning staff's description of the role of policy in the subdivision approval process was incomplete and led the commission members to discount potentially legitimate objections.

Frankly, most land use lawyers in Tennessee have always assumed that the General or Comprehensive Plan did have some role to play in subdivision consideration. This is true even though Tennessee is not a “plan as law” state, that is, in most of our jurisdictions, the plan is only advisory and basically has no legal significance. See for example Family Golf v Metro Nashville, 964 S.W. 2d 254 (Tenn. App. 1997) (permission to appeal denied April 6, 1998) (Planning Commission recommendation against a zoning change based on the General Plan is overridden by two thirds majority of Metro Council).

But the question is what role does the plan actually play in the context of subdivision consideration? First, most plans are pretty ambiguous, reflecting the inability to see very far into the future. As a result, mandatory provisions in planning documents are less frequent than found within zoning regulations or subdivision regulations. This immediately causes a problem, because with regard to small details which might be ambiguous Tennessee law has always been that ambiguity is construed in favor of the property owner. Edwards v Allen, 216 S.W. 3d 278 (Tenn. 2007). Thus, if the General Plan is ambiguous, the Planning Commission must interpreted favorably to the property owner and that would likely mean approval of the subdivision application.

Second, and perhaps much more significantly, suppose the plan directly conflicts with adopted law in the community. So for example, suppose the General Plan in one part of a local municipality envisions the property as single-family residential but the local legislative body passes a zoning regulation which permits multifamily residential uses in that same area. Recall of course that the General Plan is not law, is not passed by any legislative body (only by the Planning Commission which is not elected), and is a vision for future development not some type of binding regulation.

Back to my hypothetical: if my client applies to the Planning Commission for approval of a site plan for a multifamily residential development, can the Planning Commission deny the application based on the General Plan? Many states these days have enacted statutory provisions which make the General Plan binding, usually because it gets adopted by the local legislative body. In most jurisdictions here in Tennessee, that does not happen (there is authority for it in the planning enabling statutes, but it has not been used frequently). The planning commission adopts the General Plan and it certifies the plan to the local legislative body but that body does not in turn adopt it as law. If the Planning Commission can deny approval of a development plan based on the General Plan contrary to the zoning regulations adopted by the local legislative body, then it would seem that the ultimate authority is now in the hands of the Planning Commission. Surely this cannot be correct.

Clearly in such instances, the Planning Commission's authority to deny a development cannot be based on the general plan. The local zoning regulations take precedence and if there’s a conflict between those regulations and the General Plan, the General Plan must give way.

Unfortunately, there is no case law in Tennessee discussing this issue whatsoever and with the recent decision in the Hudson case, it will surely be coming up more and more often. 

Reagan National Advertising v City of Austin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27276 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020)

This interesting case is yet another development arising out of the Supreme Court decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert, 576 US 155 (2015). Two companies, both Reagan and Lamar Sign, sued the city when applications submitted to digitize off-premise signs were denied. Plaintiffs argued that the Sign Code distinction between on-premise and off-premise signs was a violation of the First Amendment. The lower court found in favor of the city, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that the distinction was content based, subject to strict scrutiny, and that there was no compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify the regulation.

The city Sign Code provided for the continuation of nonconforming off-premise signs but sign owners were not permitted to “change the method or technology used to convey a message” on an off-premise non-conforming sign. At the same time, the Sign Code permitted on-premise signs to be “electronically controlled changeable copy signs.” As a result, on-premise nondigital signs can be digitized, but off-premise nondigital signs cannot be. The stated purpose of the Sign Code was to protect the aesthetic value of the city and to protect public safety.

The trial court denied plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment, concluded that the Sign Code was content neutral and satisfied intermediate scrutiny.

The first interesting aspect of this case has to do with the city’s argument that the case was moot because the city adopted new sign provisions after the lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs argued that they filed their applications prior to the amendments and that under Texas state law, their applications for permits must be reviewed based on the regulations in effect at the time their applications were filed. See for example, Texas Local Government Code Annotated §245002 (a) (1). See also Reagan National Advertising of Austin v City of Cedar Park, 387 F Supp 3d 703, 706 n. 3 (WD Texas 2019) (“Texas law requires the permit applications be evaluated under the law as it existed at the time they were submitted, rather than under the new, revised sign code.”). The Fifth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs.

Notice the distinction here between Texas and Tennessee law. It appears that under Tennessee law, although it’s not entirely clear, that there is no protection based simply on the application to the city for a permit; rather, the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-310, only protects from and after the time that a development plan has been approved (not applied for) or that a building permit has been issued. So if the regulations change during the pendency of an application, theoretically the applicant must comply with the new regulations under Tennessee law.

The next issue before the court was whether the Sign Code was content-based or content neutral. Naturally, if the regulations are content neutral, then the intermediate level of scrutiny applicable to commercial speech would apply; otherwise, strict scrutiny would apply to any content-based regulation.

The court first discussed the Supreme Court decision in Reed and noted that while the Reed decision did not purport to be creating new law, the federal courts have generally recognized that Reed announced a "sea change" in the traditional test for content neutrality. The court cited a number of other circuit opinions, including the Sixth Circuit: Wagoner v City of Garfield Heights, 675 F Appx 599 (6th Cir. 2017), and perhaps more interestingly, Thomas v. Bright, 937 F.3d 721, 737 (6th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3558, 2020 WL 3865256 (July 9, 2020) which held that Tennessee's Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 54-21-101, et seq., "is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest and thus is an unconstitutional restriction on non-commercial speech." As many of you are aware, this decision and frankly the lower court decision which preceded it, seemed startling. Concluding that the entire regulatory scheme for controlling outdoor advertising signs was unconstitutional seemed, at least at the time, something of a stretch.

The court concluded that the Supreme Court decision in Reed meant that if a law is content based on its face, then it is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government’s content-neutral justification. See Reed, 576 US at 165. One difficulty with this approach is that Justice Alito in Reed concurred and specifically noted that regulations distinguishing between on-premise and off-premise signs should not be considered content-based. The Fifth Circuit, looking to the Sixth Circuit, observed that a restriction distinguishing between on-and off-premise signs could be content-neutral. A regulation that defines off-premise as any sign within 500 feet of a building is content-neutral. But if the off premise/on-premise distinction hinges on the content of the message, it is not a content-neutral restriction.

Thus, the Austin Sign Code must be evaluated under the clear rules set forth by the Reed majority. That makes the rest of the case fairly simple. The Sign Code determines on- versus off-premise by reading the sign and asking if it advertises a business, activity, product, or service not located on the site where the sign is installed. If the product or service is located on the same site than the sign is on-premise; otherwise it is off-premise.

In the Thomas v Bright case, the Sixth Circuit considered an almost identical question. Of course, the Sixth Circuit concluded that state officials were making content-based decisions in order to determine whether the outdoor advertising sign was on-premise or off-premise and invalidated the Tennessee Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972. A fairly monumental conclusion.

The Fifth Circuit mentioned that other circuits have reached different conclusions including the DC Circuit in Act Now to Stop War v District of Columbia, 846 F. 3d 391, 404 (DC Circuit 2017). In that case, the DC court reasoned that making a “cursory examination” of sign to determine whether it’s on- or off-premise did not render the statute or regulation content-based.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed. First, the court maintained that there are many cursory examinations which would simply fail. For example, suppose the regulation prevented a political sign for Candidate A, but permitted signs for Candidate B. Surely that would only take a cursory examination but also most assuredly, it would be facially unconstitutional. The court went on to examine this concept a little further, selecting several hypotheticals:

● Digital sign in front yard that says: “Sally makes quilts here and sells them at 3200 Main Street”

● Digital sign in the front yard that says “we love hamburgers” and contains the logo and address to a Whataburger location 2 miles away

● How can one determine whether a digital billboard that says “God loves you” is on- or off- premise?

You get the general idea. The court next considered whether the commercial speech exception applied under the circumstances of this case and concluded that it did not. The court essentially held just because most billboards display commercial messages does not mean that the sign regulation does not apply with equal force to both commercial and noncommercial messages. For example, recall that the Sixth Circuit decision involved billboards which were for the most part displaying noncommercial messages.

Finally, the purported justifications for the Sign Code provisions, protecting the aesthetic values and public safety, simply don’t hold up under the strict scrutiny test. There is no proof or argument that one type of sign was a greater eyesore than the other; furthermore, there was no proof that an off-premise digital sign posed a greater risk to public safety than in on-premise digital sign. As a result the relevant provisions of the Sign Code were declared unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment.

I’d encourage you to read especially the Sixth Circuit decision in Thomas as well as this Fifth Circuit decision. They are quite interesting. Even more important is attempting to determine what impact this has on local land use planning regulations. Most zoning sign regulations have some dependence on the on- versus off-site distinction. In light of these cases, are those sign regulations still valid?

My thanks to my old friend, Sam Edwards, who told me about this very interesting case. 

 

Whitson v La Vergne Board of Zoning Appeals

This interesting case, decided in May 2020, involves the issue of vested rights. A seemingly minor problem brought the case to court; the owners of a carwash applied for a building permit intending to convert the business to car sales. The permit was issued, indicating the ultimate intended use, and in fact, the planning director wrote a letter in order to facilitate approval by the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission for the business operation. The doors were replaced as provided for by the permit at a cost of approximately $14,000.

However, after operations began, the city notified the owner of the property that site plan approval had not been obtained as required. The property owner appealed to the board of zoning appeals which affirmed the decision requiring site plan approval.

The decision of the zoning board was appealed to the trial court which upheld the zoning board decision and the case was appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals arguing that the property owner had vested his rights in the use of the property and/or that the city was equitably estopped from enforcing the site plan requirement.

It is difficult to understand what the real issue might have been in this case. I am puzzled on two levels: first, why did the owner of the property not want to go through site plan review?* Even though, as I will mention below, site plan under these circumstances makes little sense, surely it would have been quicker and cheaper to go through site plan review instead of filing an appeal with the zoning board, appealing that adverse decision to trial court, and then appealing the trial court decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. I am left with the feeling that there was likely some dedication requirement which the applicant was trying to avoid.

Second, why is this case going through site plan review anyway and why is a public hearing necessary? Judge Bennett, writing for the court, cited §3.110 of the Zoning Ordinance for the proposition that applicants for a building permit must also submit scale drawings in conformance with the site plan provision. But here’s the full quote:

The purpose of this provision is to prevent undesirable site development which would unduly create inadequate circulation and unnecessary congestion; to obtain maximum convenience, safety, economy and identity in relation to adjacent sites; and to provide maximum flexibility for expansion, change in use and adapting to individual needs. Thus, applicants for building permits must submit scale drawings, according to the particular types of development proposals, to the La Vergne Municipal Planning Commission in accordance with the following procedures.

The first sentence of the quoted material makes clear that the purpose of site planning is to prevent undesirable site development basically to prevent inadequate circulation and unnecessary congestion onsite (and this is the best way to understand what site plan review is). But in this case, the building was to remain. There’s no evidence in the Court’s opinion that the building was being modified except by replacement of some doors. So, why is site plan necessary when the structures on the site are not being moved or otherwise changed? Site plan review under the circumstances seems totally unnecessary. Again, one wonders what was really going on.

For example, there is a requirement for sidewalks to be dedicated or an exaction to be paid in the site plan provisions. Perhaps the property owner balked at paying for sidewalks or dedicating the property necessary for sidewalks. This is understandable: in the case of a property where there is little or no change in the overall development, paying for sidewalks seems a violation of Nollan v California Coastal Commission, one of my favorite cases. I will have more to say about that in future posts.

Along the same lines regarding site plan review, the court drops a footnote on page 5, quoting the Director of Codes, as stating at the BZA hearing, that the codes department can’t authorize a change in use by issuing a building permit. But that dodges the real question: can the planning commission authorize a change in use by issuance of a site plan? Site planning should be zone district agnostic: that is, the Planning Commission doesn't get to consider whether the use is a good one or not. Many cities authorize changes in use merely by the issuance of a building permit and/or a site plan approved by Codes without a hearing. There is no requirement in most instances to go to a hearing before the Planning Commission for site plan review. A related question is why does site plan consideration require a public hearing? Approval of building construction plans is done by the codes employees without such a hearing usually; why is site planning different?

Now, it is understandable if there is new construction on the property. But based on my reading of the case, other than the replacement of the doors there was no new construction. Again, site plan review seems to have very little to do with this process. Certainly, something else must’ve been going on.

The actual analysis in the case is fairly straightforward.

As a general rule, the issuance of a building permit results in a vested right only when the permit was legally obtained, is valid in every respect, and was validly issued. Capps v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 2008 WL 5427972, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2008). 

Because site plan review was a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit, the issuance of the building permit without Planning Commission approval was invalid and therefore the building permit itself was invalid. This rule is well accepted, at least up until 2015.

In 2015, Tennessee adopted the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-310 (b)-(k). That act provides:

A vested property right shall be established with respect to any property upon the approval, by the local government in which the property is situated, of a … building permit allowing construction of a building where there is no need for prior approval of a preliminary development plan…”

Two observations on this language: first, site plan review in most communities does not qualify as a “preliminary development plan” as defined by the statute. So, a vested property right is established upon the issuance of a building permit.

The second observation concerns the real question in a case like this: whether it is protected by the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act. Yes, we know that a building permit which was erroneously issued prior to 2015 basically is a nullity and accomplishes nothing. But given the legislative wording of the new act, does that same rule carryover? The act does not address this particular issue and so far, there’s been no case asking for resolution of the question. Frankly, I suspect that the same result obtains: that is that an invalidly issued permit is worthless and does not vest any rights at all. But, having said that, we knew that was the case before 2015; it would be nice to have a clarification by way of an interpretation of the new language in the new act. Is a building permit which is issued erroneously after the adoption of the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act still null and void, or does the language quoted above from the act change the result? We will have to wait for another case to find out.

The next issue brought up in the case is the matter of equitable estoppel. Once again, this issue has been litigated many times. As the court noted, the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Tennessee does not apply generally to the acts of public officials or public agencies. So, the issuance of a building permit which was done wrongfully or erroneously, statements made by public officials to a building permittee, that they don’t need to get anything else or do anything else, do not help the permittee to win its case. And if you think about it for a few minutes, it makes perfect sense: if the person on the front desk who issues the building permit to the applicant, can make a mistake and issue a permit for commercial use in a residential district, or mistakenly represent to a building permit applicant that a commercial use may be used at such and such a location which just happens to be a residential district, in effect what has happened is that the codes employee has changed the zoning on the property without consideration not only of the supervisors in the codes administration, but also the members of the city council. Clearly, absent very unusual circumstances, the codes employee issuing the permit cannot bind the local government to something which has not been approved by the local legislative body.

This only serves to emphasize that an applicant seeking permission to build needs carefully to review the relevant regulations and make an independent determination concerning the validity of any requested permit. A mistake by the government won’t affect the government; it only will hinder the applicant’s plans.

This is a very interesting case, perhaps more for what it doesn’t say than for what it does.

*Addendum: Just as I was about to post this entry, I spoke with one of the attorneys involved in the case and evidently between the time of the issuance of the building permit and the time of the appeal to the zoning board, another car lot located in the same general area so that a distance requirement within the zoning ordinance was triggered preventing the use of the property as a car lot. That means that unless this petitioner could demonstrate vested rights, the newer car lot would prevent him from obtaining site plan approval. Again, this result would make much more sense if site plan review had been important under the circumstances of the case.

Vested Rights: Neighbors of Old Hickory v Ind Land Develoers

As I have mentioned previously on this blog, the Tennessee Vested Rights Act became effective on January 1, 2015. So far as I know there have not been any appellate court decisions and I am unaware of any trial court decisions except for a case recently decided by the Davidson County Chancery Court, Neighbors of Hickory v Industrial Land Developers, a case which involved an application for permits to operate a rock quarry on Burnett Road in Davidson County. I should mention that I was involved in this case.

I won't go through all the facts, but suffice it to say the property owner made early contact with representatives of the Metro Codes Administration, to make sure that the zoning was appropriate for the rock quarry, and then in the early part of 2015, submitted an application for a building permit for certain accessory structures related to the operation of the quarry. In connection with that application, a development plan was submitted showing the phases of the development, access points, surrounding land uses and the proposed construction.One of the arguments of the neighbors was that the building permit application did not list the quarry as a land use, but this argument was certainly much less significant given the fact that there was correspondence between the owner and Codes detailing exactly what the owner planned to do and making sure that the zoning was appropriate.

Further, after obtaining the building permit, but before the buildings were completed, the property owner also submitted an application for a use and occupancy permit which was issued, specifically for the quarry. Temporary occupancy permits for the buildings were issued another month later, and about six months after the original applications were made, the Metro Council changed the zoning in an effort to prevent the quarry from opening.

The trial court concluded that the owners had used a "belt and suspenders" approach to vesting their rights: both the building permit and the development plan were sufficient, standing alone, to vest the rights from the perspective of the Judge.

The plaintiffs had argued that the failure of the building permit to reference the land use activity (rock quarry) prevented the application of the Vested Rights Act. Although the court did not address this in particular, it certainly found that both the building permit and the development plan were sufficient standing alone and thus impliedly rejected that argument.

There was a secondary argument concerning who had the burden of proof. The plaintiffs, adopting the standard from non-conforming use case law, suggested that the party asserting vested rights had the burden of proof. The court, in what I think is a very appropriate methodology, concluded that while the initial burden might be on the party asserting vested rights to prove that either a building permit or a development plan was approved, that the burden would then shift to the challengers to demonstrate some reason why the permits or plans were not appropriate in order to defeat the application of the statute.

Finally, running through parts of the plaintiff's argument was that for certain kinds of out-of-doors activities, rock quarries, landfills, agricultural uses, the Vested Rights Act did not apply because there is really no way to obtain a building permit for one of those types of uses. Further, the plaintiff suggested that even though accessory construction might be necessary, that the relatively small size of the accessory construction vis-à-vis the size of the principal use made it inappropriate to apply the act under such circumstances. Again, the court did not directly rule on this argument. However, there's no authority within the statute to conclude that any type of a building permit would not vest the rights to proceed, and if the rights could not vest on those types of uses, rock quarries, landfills, and others, the Vested Rights Act might be of little use. It is those very controversial types of land uses which require protection of this kind.

This case is a great example of the problems that property owners frequently encounter. As soon as it became known that a quarry was being proposed for this property, activity began to change the zoning on the property to prohibit that use. From my perspective, dealing with my clients, usually, we are glad to meet whatever requirements have been set up by the local government. What makes things difficult is a change in the rules once the application has been submitted. And that very often is exactly what happens. As soon as it became known that the rock quarry was being proposed, immediate action was taken to change the zoning. While this is perhaps understandable, it makes it very difficult and risky to engage in land development under such circumstances.

There's no word on appeal at this time.

The trial court opinion may be found here.

Speedy Cash: Vested Rights, Estoppel and Standing

In a decision filed on April 22, 2016, Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle ruled that a cash advance financial institution had established an equitable estoppel which prevented Metro Nashville from revoking a permit which had erroneously been issued. The case, Concord Finance, Inc., d/b/a Speedy Cash v Metro Board of Zoning Appeals and Tennessee Quick Cash, Inc., Docket #15-1362-III, is extremely interesting inasmuch as its result is very unusual.

I will summarize the facts quickly although the opinion is quite lengthy and in these vested rights/estoppel cases, the factual setting is always the most important. Having said that, the essential  facts are that Speedy Cash applied for a building permit in September 2014 to renovate and remodel an existing convenience market on Dickerson Pike. While the application for the building permit was pending, the Metro Council amended the zoning ordinance in a way which would prohibit the location of a cash advance retail store at that location. Ultimately Metro Codes decided to go ahead and issue the permit notwithstanding the passage of the new zoning regulation. The construction was virtually completed when on April 21, 2015, the Metro Zoning Administrator issued a stop work order and revoked the building permit. The stop work order noted that the permit had been issued in error. Speedy Cash had spent approximately $600,000 in the construction effort.

Speedy Cash appealed the decision to the Metro Board of Zoning Appeals, but the administrative body upheld the decision of the Metro Zoning Administrator. From there, an appeal was taken pursuant to the common law writ of certiorari.

The court looked at three different issues: vested rights and the pending ordinance doctrine, equitable estoppel, and standing. It is worthwhile to read the entire opinion, but again, I will very briefly summarize the decision of the court.

The court found against Speedy Cash with regard to the vested rights doctrine. The court found that the undisputed facts indicated that the new zoning ordinance became effective on November 19, 2014. The building permit was not issued until December 2, 2014. "Issuance of a permit for a building that does not comply with the law renders the permit illegal and, therefore, invalid and of no effect as of the date of its issuance…" Slip Opinion at 12.

The court engaged in some additional analysis based on the pending legislation doctrine, but frankly, I think the summary above encapsulates the significant holding. Ultimately, if a building permit is issued in violation of the existing law at the time of issuance, it is simply void and of no effect. It doesn't make any difference how much construction was completed or how much it cost.

The court then turned to the equitable estoppel argument. Once again, the law is not favorable for Speedy Cash. The equitable estoppel doctrine applies only very rarely to governmental entities. The court cited Sexton v Sevier County, 948 S.W. 2d 747, 751 (Tenn. App. 1997) as an example. There are many others.

However in this case, the court concluded that Metro's conduct clearly induced and caused detrimental reliance by Speedy Cash and given the fact that the building was completely constructed and its design customized for use as a cash advance retail outlet, the doctrine should apply. The important facts related to the original hesitation by Metro Codes to issue the permit, a review by Metro Codes, and a final decision indicating that the permit would be issued and in fact was issued, because it was "grandfathered" in. Most likely, that determination was incorrect; but its effect was to induce the applicant to move forward with the construction effort and spend a very significant amount of money.

Accordingly, the court found in favor of the applicant (Speedy Cash) and reversed the decision of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals.

Finally, one remaining issue was determined by the court. A competitor, Tennessee Quick Cash appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals and also participated in the arguments before the Chancery Court. Tennessee Quick Cash admitted that it did not have a store within a quarter mile of the Speedy Cash location. The court noted that in order to have standing, Tennessee Quick Cash must show a direct and palpable injury, a special injury not common to the public generally. City of Brentwood v Metro Board of Zoning Appeals 149 S.W. 3d 49, 58 (Tenn. App. 2004). Tennessee Quick Cash argued that its status as a business subject to the same regulatory structure as the petitioner gave it standing. The court concluded however that the threatened injury necessary to confer standing in a zoning case must be related to the use of the property – dust, noise, traffic, or something similar. Nothing like that appeared in the record with regard to Tennessee Quick Cash, and it certainly didn't flow simply from being a business competitor. Therefore, the court concluded that Tennessee Quick Cash had no standing to speak before the Board of Zoning Appeals and had no standing before the Chancery Court.

This final holding is somewhat unusual, but certainly understandable. It reinforces the concern that any land use attorney has when representing a business competitor who is not located within a short distance from the project itself. In this case, the court used a quarter of a mile, and as it happens, that is my usual rule of thumb: I always look to see if my client (or conversely, an opponent to my client's project) is located within a quarter of a mile of the proposed project. There are some Tennessee cases which suggest 2000 feet, and certainly if your opponent is located that far away that's even better, but a quarter of a mile has always seemed to me to be a reasonable distance. If the objecting party is located more than a quarter of a mile away from the project, there's a pretty strong likelihood that there is no standing.

Anyway, this case gives us three valuable lessons on zoning law. First, vested rights are hard to establish under the Tennessee common law, where you need both a building permit and substantial construction. But more than that under the circumstances of this case, even if you obtain a building permit and even if you engage in substantial construction, if the building permit itself did not comply with the existing law at the time of the issuance of the permit, the permit is most likely void and there are no rights to vest.

Remember also, that the Tennessee Vested Rights Act became effective after the events in this case, on January 1, 2015, but it probably would not have made any difference. The Tennessee Vested Rights Act,  Tenn. Code Ann. §  13-4-310 (b)-(k), requires only the issuance of a building permit, and unlike the common law, it does not require any construction in order to vest. But, once again, if the building permit was void at the time of issuance by virtue of the fact that it did not comply with the zoning or other land development regulations in effect at the time of its issuance, then there are probably no rights which have vested even pursuant to the terms of the statute. The building permit must comply with the local regulations, and if not, it is not very helpful in future litigation.

The second lesson is that even though it is extremely unusual, every once in a while, given unusual facts, an equitable estoppel can be made out against a local government. It doesn't happen often, but from time to time it can be very effective.

Finally, and perhaps a more frequent issue which can come up in virtually any zoning board hearing, the standing of a business competitor is certainly undercut by the Chancellor's decision. The business competitor needs to demonstrate that it is within a short distance from the project, like anyone else, or have some other overwhelming reason that it should have the right to contest the project. Otherwise it simply lacks standing to participate.