Shelbyville, Tennessee · Friday, November 20, 2009
[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 61°F  
High: 66°F ~ Low: 43°F
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (6) Share link

City loses appeal of zoning lawsuit

Friday, November 6, 2009

The city of Shelbyville has lost an appeal with a local paving company who claimed the city did not give adequate notice of a change in zoning laws they say impacted their property.

But the impact of the court ruling may be moot since the city will likely pass an identical ordinance next week after the appeals court declared the old one invalid.

In a decision filed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Nashville on Tuesday, Judge Patricia J. Cottrell ruled that the city's published notice in regards to a 2004 zoning change "failed to provide reasonable notice to landowners that their property may be affected" and found the notice to be insufficient.

Norma and Tommy Wright, Wright Paving Co., Inc and Custom Stone LLC, sued the city, the city council and planning commission over a proposed, rock quarry which was turned down for approval in January 2005.

Summary judgement was granted in December 2008 in favor of Shelbyville by Judge Lee Russell, who found that the ordinance in question complied with all public notice requirements.

He also ruled that the Wrights had no right to require that their request under the prior I-2 zoning be considered and that the denial of the Wrights' I-3 zoning application was not illegal.

The Wrights moved to dismiss any of their remaining claims without prejudice and it was granted, however, they appealed solely on the issue whether the public notice given by Shelbyville was adequate.

Notice inadequate

According to city attorney Ginger Shofner, when the city published the public notice in the Times-Gazette, it was "not specific enough."

Judge Cottrell ruled that while the public notice made reference to the city's zoning ordinance, "there is no other information provided about the substance of the proposed amendment or what property may be affected."

Shofner said that the council thought that it had an I-3 zone when it passed the amendment in July 2004, but the court has now ruled that was not the case.

However, next Thursday, the city will hold the third and final reading to amend the city zoning ordinance to add a new section entitled "Building Requirements in Commercial or Industrial Zones to Article IV, Supplementary Provisions applying to Specific Districts," which would establish an I-3 zoning classification.

City recorder Betty Lamb said Thursday that the new amendment simply reconfirms the I-3 requirement.

Mary Ferrara of Nashville represented the city in the matter and according to Shofner, the litigation was covered by the Tennessee Municipal League insurance fund.

Shofner said that the ruling may make the standard for public notices "more difficult" for municipalities and that the city council has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Wright pleased

Tommy Wright said Thursday that the ruling "was a long time coming, we knew the law would eventually be on our side."

The Wrights' original suit claimed that Shelbyville only possessed two industrial zones -- I-1 and I-2. Mining and quarrying activity was allowed as a conditional use in the I-2 zone, the suit said.

The suit states that on Feb. 12, 2004, the Wrights submitted a letter to the city's Board of Zoning Appeals requesting approval for special conditions for mining and quarrying.

The lawsuit stated that in March of that year, engineer Jim Patterson sent a letter to then-codes official Wayne Williams stating that the Wrights wanted to "keep the application pending" and requested to be notified if it needed to be resubmitted to be considered and to notify them of any proposed changes in zoning ordinances.

The Wrights' lawsuit asserted that, "in an effort to thwart" their application for approval of special condition for quarrying activity, the city council introduced an ordinance in May of 2004 that added a third industrial zoning district called I-3, which deleted certain uses, including stone quarrying and crushing, from I-2.

Lack of notice claimed

The Wrights claimed they received no notice of the change and were sent a fax on the day of the third and final reading in July 2004, "when it was too late for plaintiffs [the Wrights] to schedule a hearing on their pending application," the suit states.

During the Nov. 18, 2004 meeting of Shelbyville Municipal Planning Commission, several citizens attended to oppose the proposed quarry on L. Fisher Road, several hundred feet from another quarry on Railroad Avenue. Planning commissioners at that meeting unanimously denied an application for the site under I-2.

However, the Wrights submitted a new application on Dec. 2 for a rock quarry under I-3 zoning. The city council turned down their request in January 2005 "on the basis that the proposed location is close to residential development and community facilities and a rock quarry at that location would adversely affect property values and property use."

The Wright lawsuit asked the court to make the city consider the rock quarry under I-2 zoning, to void the decision denying it under I-3 zoning, and to set aside the I-3 zone as unconstitutional.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on t-g.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

But the impact of the court ruling may be moot since the city will likely pass an identical ordinance next week after the appeals court declared the old one invalid.

Posted by Brian Mosely on Friday, November 6, 2009

Let's face it. The City has done the Wright Company wrong.

Now, instead of admitting to their short comings I read they will..... "likely pass an identical ordinance next week after the appeals court declared the old one invalid"

I see the City getting us buried off deeper under this pile of rock that the Wright Company should be allowed to produce and furthermore I predict that in time this company will produce stone here in Bedford County and the County and/or City will pay for the rock they did not get to produce during the time they were denied their due land use rights.

I would strongly suggest the City look at the Appeals Court Ruling and not try to get cute and attempt to step over their (State Appeals Court) intended results to establish "right".

Although I will have to probably pay my share (through taxes) to right this wrong the City has done I must say that I respect and appreciate the Wright Company greatly for sticking to the principles of "right" and getting this appealed out of the local systems to the State level of Appeals where local corruption can not continue to stifle the principles of "truth" and "right".

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 10:35 AM

I'm sorry but I live on the east end of town and my house and others in my area are getting messed up because of the blasting they do.NO MORE QUARRYS!!!!!!! I wish they would shut down the ones we already have here. They are to close to the neiborhoods.

-- Posted by tiredofthiscrap on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 11:27 AM

Way to go Ms. Norma and Tommy!! I hope you will soon be able to get your business up and running. Hopefully this will employ people in our county who are in need of a job.

-- Posted by what??? on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 12:36 PM

Lets face it the pave co.got the city contract.

Lets face it look at Jim Tracys camp.funds its got alot of wrights money in it

-- Posted by backat ya on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 2:57 PM

sorry but I live on the east end of town and my house and others in my area are getting messed up because of the blasting they do.NO MORE QUARRYS!!!!!!! I wish they would shut down the ones we already have here. They are to close to the neiborhoods.

-- Posted by tiredofthiscrap on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 11:27 AM

tiredofthiscrap,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the neighborhoods are too close to the crushers.

Unless you have an almost antebellum era home I would venture to say that the crusher was there before your neighborhood was.

I actually grew up in a house that connected to the crusher land and hardly knew it was there.

One misconception that you need to rid yourself of is your thinking that another quarry is going to cause more blasting.

If you allowed 20 more crushers out there the blasting would stay almost if not exactly the same. The area market for stone is only as big as it is. The demand for stone is not in any way related to the number of crushers producing it. The price of the stone is related to the number of crushers producing stone. There is only so much rock needed and purchased in a given geographic market area.

The only thing another crusher would do is create competition that helps control and eliminate price gouging.

Congradulations Tommy Wright. Good to see you hang tough for what is right. I knew once you got it to the State level and got politics and corruption out of it you would prevail and get the clearly evident incorrect ruling of Judge Russell overturned. Right will always be right, just as wrong will always be wrong.

Shame you had to suffer 5 years for it. Stick it to em. They need a good dose of it. Maybe it would make us realize the liabilities we have when we elect incompetent judges and council members.

-- Posted by 007 on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 4:21 PM

The city has done the Wrights wrong and should do what is right,the crusher has been there since the turn of the century so it was there first.

-- Posted by tinytoes on Sat, Nov 7, 2009, at 1:02 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.