by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

“I don’t understand the court’s interpretation,” said Grundy County Mayor Michael Brady in response to the Feb. 25 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in favor of Tinsley Properties, LLC and Tinsley Sand & Gravel, LLC (“Tinsley”) to operate a quarry in violation of Grundy County’s County Powers Act Resolution. “The decision talked about zoning. They gave no authority to the County Powers act. They pushed it aside as if to say, ‘This doesn’t matter.’”

In 2019 Grundy County adopted a Powers Act resolution, allowing the county to regulate non-agriculture activities. Prior to the state legislature authorizing counties to adopt the Powers Act, zoning was the only way rural counties could “protect” themselves, Brady explained. The Powers Act offered an alternative. Among other Powers Act resolutions, Grundy County passed regulations governing sand and gravel quarries, including the rule a quarry could not be located within 5,000 feet of a residence.

In 2020 Tinsley Properties purchased property on Chevy Chase Road in an unincorporated part of Grundy County with homes nearby. Several months later, Tinsley Properties leased the tract to Tinsley Sand & Gravel to operate a quarry. Brady instructed county attorney Bill Rieder “to pursue enforcing Grundy County’s regulations.” Tinsley challenged Grundy County in court.

Grundy County Chancery Court, the three justices of the Tennessee Appellate Court, and the state attorney general all sided with Grundy County’s right to regulate a quarry’s distance from homes as a nuisance activity as defined by the Powers Act. The Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed.

“The Supreme Court decision is very disappointing. Grundy County followed the powers granted to it by the Powers Act to the letter,” said attorney Rieder citing Tennessee law. “The County Powers Act empowers counties to ‘prescribe limits within which businesses, occupations, and practices liable to be a nuisance detrimental to the health, common morals, common security or general welfare of the people may lawfully be established, conducted, or maintained.’ The statute prescribed said resolutions were to be enacted by two-thirds vote of the county legislative body. Grundy County followed the prescribed method for enacting the distance limitation.”

But as Brady noted, “the court gave no authority to the County Powers Act.” The Tennessee Supreme Court decision concluded Grundy County’s distance-from-residences rule was “in effect, a zoning ordinance, [therefore] the fact that it may have been independently authorized by [Powers Act] police powers is immaterial.”

From the outset, Tinsley’s arguments hinged on Grundy County violating Tennessee’s County Zoning Act (CZA). The Chancery Court held that citing cases based on zoning rules was not applicable because the Grundy County Resolution was not “tantamount to zoning” since the county did not have a comprehensive zoning plan. The Appellate Court maintained the Resolution was not a zoning regulation subject to statutory zoning procedures because it did not “divide the County into districts, nor does it have the effect of doing so.”

The Supreme Court, conversely, based its opinion on its two-part “substantial effects” test for zoning, concluding the Grundy County’s Powers Act distance resolution did, in fact, qualify as zoning. The Supreme Court said the Chancery Court “erred” and the decision of the Appellate Court was “vacated.”

Based on an earlier decision, the Supreme Court ruled, “an ordinance is considered tantamount to zoning — and therefore subject to the procedural requirements of the CZA — when it substantially affects the use of land,” which the Grundy County Powers Act does. The second test the Supreme Court used to determine if the Grundy County resolution qualified as zoning, however, was entirely based on semantics. The justices examined whether the Grundy County resolution contained terms “customarily associated with comprehensive zoning plans.” The court decided the Grundy County resolution qualified as zoning because the resolution “references property lines and boundaries” and “includes a ‘grandfather clause,’” … “terms and concepts customarily associated with zoning.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” Brady said. “You can come in. You can rape the land. You can strip the resources. You can vibrate people’s homes off their very foundation, but we’re powerless to stop it.”

Rieder confirmed there is no avenue for appealing the decision to a higher court because the Powers Act is a state rule, not a federal rule. But he stressed, “Not withstanding our disappointment in the decision, Grundy County respects the decision of the court and will abide accordingly. It’s a tough blow for rural counties.”

Brady acknowledged he is concerned about other Powers Act resolutions passed by the county setting distance parameters for adult entertainment businesses, encampments, and pain management facilities.

“Our work continues,” Brady insisted. “We’ll move forward with protecting the people of Grundy County. That’s our position. We will continue. You need to be mindful of the next thing. We’ve got to come up with a plan to protect our home.”