of stockpiled areas, a washing system, a dust collection system, and loaders, scale house and complex to be together and more track drills and compressors.” [When the ordinance was passed], only the blasting equipment had been placed on site. Id. at *3. Based largely upon the property owner’s description of the operation as a “proposed quarry” and an expert’s characterization of the land as an “embryonic green field operation,” the court ruled that the quarry was not “in operation” at the time of the zoning changes. Id. at *8. V. Diminishing Assets Doctrine When analyzing whether a particular “industrial, commercial or business establishment [is] in operation,” Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b), the nature of the business and industry cannot be disregarded. Smith Cnty., 304 S.W.3d at 318-19 (<HOLDING>); Hansen Bros. Enters. v. Bd. of Supervisors,
holding that a civic center building or recreational building on property dedicated to the city as park property was inconsistent with its use as a park holding that landowners testimony based on lot method was properly excluded in condemnation case involving property  that owner proposed to develop as mobile home park where subdivision development was speculative holding that despite moving mobile homes onto the property a mobile home park was not in operation since regulations required permits to operate such a park and the property owner had not applied for such permits holding that an assembler of a mobile home is deemed to be a manufacturer of a finished product that is the mobile home for purposes of determining the applicability of the affirmative causalrelation defense under the aemld holding that a municipal corporation was forbidden to construct an auditorium in a park as such construction would practically destroy the lot as a park and convert its use into a public square