Granting Variances for Subdivisions

 An amendment to the Tennessee Regional Planning Enabling Statutes was passed by the General Assembly in 2018, authorizing, without any explanation or definition, a regional planning commission to grant variances for subdivision applications. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 13-3-402(d). The language of the amendment is very simple although it may raise more questions than it answers:

A regional planning commission may grant variances to subdivision regulations, if such variances are adopted at a public meeting of the commission.

There are no standards provided as to when variances might be appropriately granted; the only requirement appears to be that the variances must be approved at a public meeting, and since virtually all meetings of regional planning commissions are open to the public, that element should be easy to overcome.

Are these variances supposed to be the same as the variances which a zoning board is empowered to grant? See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 13-7-109(3). No, because the variances which the zoning board may grant are to alleviate difficulties caused by the enforcement of zoning regulations, not subdivision regulations.

But do the same standards apply? In order to obtain a zoning variance, the applicant must show that the property is exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped, or subject to exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions. Are those requirements also applicable in the case of variances from subdivision regulations?

It is impossible to tell. Perhaps the Planning Commission is supposed to adopt its own standards by which to judge whether a variance is appropriate. That would allow all kinds of different types of variances to be granted by different planning commissions across the state.

I should mention that most Planning Commissions have over the last 20 years or so been granting variances to the subdivision regulations in any event. I assume that the statute was passed because somewhere in Tennessee a case was appealed and the local court may have concluded that the planning commission did not have the power to grant a variance since it was not enabled by state statute. I am sympathetic to that argument; from my perspective, planning commissions don't have any independent power which is not vested by a statute adopted by the General Assembly. That has not however stopped planning commissions from granting variances to the subdivision regulations.

On the other hand, since the Planning Commissions pretty much adopt their own subdivision regulations, the members of the commissions would be in the best position to judge how those regulations should be administered and enforced, and if they feel that a variance is appropriate, perhaps that's not too much of a stretch.

I always think back to the Hamilton Bank versus Williamson County Planning Commission case where the US Supreme Court at least seemed to imply that the planning commission itself could grant variances to their subdivision regulations and that one of the reasons that the case was not ripe for constitutional consideration was the fact that no variance had been applied for. But since planning commissions in Tennessee back then did not have any power to grant variances, at least not enabled by state statute, the Supreme Court's decision in that regard seemed a little amiss.

In any event, this amendment is interesting to consider, and also to consider that a similar amendment was not passed regarding municipal planning commissions. Why not? Since the General Assembly saw fit to enable variances for regional planning commissions but not for municipal planning commissions, does that imply that municipal planning commissions do not have the power to grant such variances? It's hard to know. Certainly we should expect that drafting these statutory provisions would be held to a higher standard; if a variance is proposed for regional planning commission, wouldn't it make sense to check to see if the same provision would be appropriate in the context of municipal planning commissions?

Frankly, from my standpoint, it's not clear to me that planning commissions of any type should be permitted to grant variances. But assuming that regional planning commissions are given the power, then surely municipal corporations should have been enabled to do so at the same time.

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. 

Hearings on subdivision applications?

 Just a quick entry today based on a Planning Commission meeting I was at earlier this week. After the staff presented my client's application for subdivision approval, including their comments and recommendations, the chair indicated that this was not a “public hearing” and that it would take a vote to waive the rules in order to allow public comment. I’m hoping that the chair misspoke but just in case there’s some misunderstanding, let me emphasize that while it may be that the hearing is not open to the public (don't misunderstand, the meeting is certainly open to the public but it may be that the statute does not require that the public be involved in the actual hearing; that is, members of the public may only be able to sit and watch although that certainly makes little sense), there certainly is a required hearing. And the basic definition of a hearing is that the applicant gets to make a presentation. The use of the word hearing in the statute also suggests that any people in support or opposition would also get to make comments about the appropriateness of the subdivision. In due course, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution waiving its rules and allowing the hearing, but let me emphasize:       a hearing is required by statute in Tennessee.

In the case of a regional planning commission, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 13-3-404(a) provides that:

Any plat submitted to the commission shall contain the name and address of a person to whom notice of hearing may be sent; and no plat shall be acted upon by the commission without affording a hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which shall be sent by mail to the address not less than five days before the date fixed for such hearing.

In the case of a municipal planning commission, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 13-4-304(c) provides that:

Any plat submitted to the commission shall contain the name and address of a person to whom notice of hearing shall be sent; and no plat shall be acted upon by the commission without affording a hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which shall be sent by mail to such address not less than five days before the date fixed for such hearing.

As you can quite easily see, both statutory provisions require a hearing, although perhaps you might not call it a public hearing. It may be that when this legislation was passed, back in 1935, it was only anticipated that the applicant would be present to discuss the application with the members of the Planning Commission. However, since all Tennessee meeting such as this are open to the public, perhaps that distinction is not that meaningful at present.

The appellate courts have also noted this mandatory requirement. In a landmark decision issued just a few years ago, the Court of Appeals reviewed the subdivision process and remarked that a plat may not "be acted upon by the commission without affording a hearing thereon." Save Rural Franklin v Williamson County, 2016 Tenn. App. Lexis 633,*11-12, 2016 WL 4523418 (Tenn. App. 2016).

A further authority on this, although why anyone would need more I don’t know, is the Tennessee Planning Commissioner Handbook, published by the Tennessee Department of Economic & Community Development, Local Assistance Office, and primarily authored by my good friend and very capable planner, Bill Terry. The second edition is dated 2002. At page 34, we find the following:

Another due process requirement applying to both regional and municipal planning commissions is the need to notify the applicant that a public hearing is to be held on the plat.

Given the statutory directive, the remark by the Court of Appeals and the practical experience of a highly respected planner, I hope that there are not too many commissions which believe that a hearing on a subdivision plat is some type of privilege only permitted by special dispensation. A hearing on the plat is mandated by state law and the failure to give a hearing on the application for plat approval will certainly lead to quick reversal in any appeal.

Metz v Metro Nasvhille

1st Case:  2017 WL 4677248
2nd Case: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/metz.george.opn__0.pdf

In addition take a look at this Tennessean article.

These two cases involve a challenge by neighbors to a 96 unit affordable apartment complex proposed in Antioch. Once again, these cases reinforce the very common errors that are made by counsel for petitioners in a writ of certiorari case: failing to file within 60 days of the decision of the administrative body, and/or failing to have the petition verified by the petitioner(s).

A preliminary master development plan was approved on March 24, 2016 by the Metro Planning Commission, and the minutes were signed and entered on April 14, 2016. A rehearing was requested and heard on April 28, 2016; the Planning Commission denied the request and the minutes for the meeting were entered on May 12, 2016.

On May 16, the petitioners filed a common law writ of certiorari challenging the March 24, April 14, and May 12 decisions. Neither the original petition nor several amended petitions which were filed on behalf of the petitioners were verified by oath as required by Tennessee law.

On August 5, 2016, Metro Nashville filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted. The petitioners filed a motion to amend the petition on August 15, which was verified an otherwise comported with the procedural requirements of the common law writ of certiorari.

In the first case reviewed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals (citation above), the trial court’s decision was upheld. Once the 60 day time frame had elapsed, without the petition having been corrected, the trial court lost jurisdiction and could no longer grant a motion to amend; therefore, the case had to be dismissed for lack of compliance with the procedural requirements of the common law writ of certiorari

An additional argument in the first case was whether or not the suit papers could be considered as a declaratory judgment rather than as a common law writ of certiorari. The difficulty with this argument is that in reviewing a master development plan within a planned unit development or a specific plan, under the Metro Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission makes an administrative decision by applying existing law through a given set of facts. The planning commission does not create new law. The common law writ of certiorari applies to review an administrative decision which applies existing law to a development proposal; declaratory judgment action is available to review a proposed change in the law, such as a zoning change (from, let’s say, a residential zoning district to a commercial zoning district).

The court cited McFarland v. Pemberton, 2017 WL 4279199, at *22, 28-29 (Tenn. Sept.20, 2017), for this authority; this case is an extremely interesting case applying this doctrine and explaining the difference between the common law writ in a declaratory judgment action.

However, in addition to reviewing the McFarland case, counsel for petitioners in a land use planning matter might consider suing both ways, that is, filing a petition for common law writ of certiorari, properly verified and filed within 60 days of the administrative decision, as well as filing a declaratory judgment action if there is any question that the case could be filed on my are not the other. By filing both types of cases, separately, the attorney hopefully avoids these difficulties.

But it cannot be emphasized too much, that the petition for common law writ of certiorari must be verified by the petitioner, that is the petitioner must swear that the facts alleged in the petition are true to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge information and belief. Furthermore, the petition must be filed within 60 days of the decision of the administrative body. In zoning cases, for the most part, the planning commission or the board of zoning appeals are the administrative bodies making decisions although in some instances, the local legislative body may make an administrative decision itself so that the common law writ of certiorari is applicable. There are other requirements related to the common law writ, but these are the two that are most often missed and lead to dismissals of cases which might otherwise have some merit.

A second lawsuit was filed on December 27, 2016 challenging the decision on April 28, 2016. As the Court of Appeals ruled several days ago in reviewing the trial court decision to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari, once again because the lawsuit was not filed until well after 60 days had already expired, the lawsuit was filed too late, and the trial court lost jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari.

Finally, on October 13, 2016, the planning commission approved the final site plan, the minutes for which were entered on October 27. This decision was challenged by the same suit filed on December 27, 2016. Although it would appear that the filing of the common law writ was also beyond the 60 days (it looks to me like the petition was filed 61 days after the entry of the minutes on October 27), the court did not address that issue but looked at whether or not the approval of the final details of the development plan was the final judgment of the Planning Commission. It concluded that it was not; the Court of Appeals decision was that the March 24 decision concerning the preliminary master development plan was the final discretionary judgment of the Planning Commission and that the final details of the site plan, approved in October, was simply a ministerial decision from which an appeal could not be taken.

The Commission’s approval of the master development plan on March 24, 2016, created legally binding, enforceable restrictions within the Forrest View PUD, and thus, it constituted the Commission’s final judgment or order. As to the final site plan approval on October 13, the Developer was entitled to the Commission’s approval as long as the final site plan complied with the master development plan. In other words, the October 13 decision was not discretionary. Accordingly, the clock for challenging the Commission’s decision started to run on April 14, 2016, when the Commission entered the minutes for the March 24 decision. Petitioners filed their writ of certiorari on December 27, 2016, which fell outside the sixty-day deadline. As a consequence, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the decision. 

The court cites an interesting similar case in the area of subdivision approval, Save Rural Franklin v. Williamson Cty. Gov’t, 2016 WL 4523418, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016), which essentially holds that waiting until final approval of a subdivision plat is too late to initiate a challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission. Rather, in the subdivision context, the decision must be challenged from the preliminary plat approval.

This decision by the Court of Appeals seems eminently reasonable. If the challenge is to the basic layout and overall design of a development, it should occur at the time that the overall design is approved. Failing to appeal from that decision within 60 days bars further review. Once the final details are submitted to the planning commission in accord with the previously approved design, it should be too late to file an appeal concerning the overall design. However, I would note, that if there is a question as to whether or not the details are consistent with the overall design, there might be an avenue to appeal concerning whether the site plan is appropriate given the previous approvals. In this case however, the challenge was clearly to the overall design of the development and what was going to take place there. The minor details reflected on a final site plan were not really at issue.

In any event, the main lesson to take away from these two cases is that a common law writ of certiorari must be based upon a petition which has been verified by the petitioner, and filed within 60 days of the administrative decision which it challenges. If there’s a question, both a common law writ and a declaratory judgment action can be filed. If there’s any question about whether the lawsuit should be filed earlier or later, it is always best to file early. Certainly, if the lawsuit is filed too early and it is not appropriate at that time, the court can dismiss and a later case may be filed. Waiting too late to file the appeal has the effect of preventing any appeal at all.

BZA decisions must be consistent wtih General Plan

One of the more interesting new zoning laws which becomes effective July 1, 2011 (that's right, next year, not this!) extends the mandatory consistency of the General Plan in those jurisdictions where the Planning Commission has recommended and the local legislative body has adopted the General Plan. This is a distinct minority of Tennessee jurisdictions: most General Plans are adopted by the Planning Commission and no legislative action is needed.

But in those areas where it is, Chapter 648 of the 2010 Tennessee Pubic Acts requires that not only must any land use decision by the legislative body and planning commission be consistent with the plan, but so too must all zoning board decisions (excepting variances). For attorneys as well as applicants to the effected zoning boards, this may add another wrinkle in the application process. The applicant will have to prove consistency with the plan, or possibly face reversal on appeal.

Let me say that it may be necessary under the state laws in effect now (in fact I usually try to prove such consistency whenever I am in front of a zoning board) so that perhaps this isn't such a big deal. However, Chapter 648 makes the requirement much more pointed, and opposing parties may find this fairly easily and thus have another argument to invalidate a zoning board decision.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the 2008 amendment that authorized adoption of general plans by the local legislative body permits but does not require the planning commission to request adoption of the plan by the legislative body. In effect, once such a request is made and the plan adopted by the LLB, the plan becomes a creature of the LLB, and not of the planning commission. The City of Columbia Planning Commission has made such a request; I don't recall hearing if the plan was ultimately adopted by the local legislative body or not. There may be other examples but as of yet, I believe they are few and far between.

Take a look at Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-202(b) to understand the basic premise behind the statutory scheme; Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-3-304(b) is the companion regional provision.