In an opinion released today, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a Grundy County resolution regulating the location of quarries is effectively a zoning ordinance that was enacted in violation of Tennessee’s County Zoning Act (“CZA”). The CZA requires counties to follow certain procedural requirements when passing a zoning ordinance, such as holding a public hearing and submitting the ordinance to the county’s regional planning commission. An ordinance is characterized as zoning when the regulation closely resembles comprehensive zoning plans and when the ordinance substantially affects the use of property. In this case, Grundy County passed Resolution 19-5-20c without complying with the CZA.
Tinsley Properties, LLC and Tinsley Sand & Gravel, LLC (“Tinsley”) own and operate a quarry in Grundy County, Tennessee. The mayor of Grundy County informed Tinsley that the quarry was in violation of Resolution 19-5-20c, which requires quarries to be located more than 5,000 feet away from specified types of establishments. The mayor thus requested that Tinsley terminate all quarrying activities. Tinsley brought a lawsuit against Grundy County seeking a determination that the resolution was void due to lack of compliance with the CZA. Grundy County filed a counterclaim arguing that the resolution is valid and seeking to prohibit Tinsley from operating the quarry. The County admitted that it did not comply with the requirements in the CZA when adopting the resolution, but argued that the resolution was not a zoning regulation subject to the requirements of the CZA. The parties each filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Grundy County’s motion and denied Tinsley’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacated the trial court’s judgment. The Court noted that Resolution 19-5-20c effectively divided the County into zones and regulated the use of land in those zones. The Court further observed that the resolution closely resembled the type of regulation typically recognized as zoning. Accordingly, the Court held that Grundy County enacted what amounts to a zoning ordinance without complying with the statutory requirements contained in the CZA.
To read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Tinsley Properties, LLC et al. v. Grundy County, Tennessee, authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins, visit the Supreme Court opinions section of TNCourts.gov.
