Tennessee Supreme Court hears challenge over Grundy County quarry restrictions

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Tinsley Properties LLC v. Grundy County on whether county resolutions that restrict quarrying locations are valid or must be treated as zoning and therefore adopted only through statutory zoning procedures.

The dispute matters because the court’s interpretation of the County Powers Act, Tennessee Code Annotated §5-1-118, and the court’s “substantial effects” (tantamount-to-zoning) test could affect how counties without comprehensive zoning regulate potentially nuisance businesses such as quarries. Counsel told the court that roughly 47 Tennessee counties lacked a zoning ordinance as of 2014, a figure cited in the record.

Michael Catone, counsel for Tinsley Properties LLC and Tinsley Sand and Gravel LLC, argued the resolutions are void on two independent grounds. He told the court that “local governments only have the powers that are delegated to them specifically by the general assembly” and that Grundy County relied on the County Powers Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §5-1-118(c), for authority it does not possess. Catone said county resolutions that function like zoning must follow the statutory zoning procedures that protect landowners’ rights, and that Grundy County conceded it did not follow those…