ÿWPCé# c›K3wLÒK ÆêÉæÛTâ­ÜnqaúøŠ@ëWõYGÃK“¢G™ðN†2ˆM&ô²§$Ñ‚29(Ø'®UÜfK$ɶÆ!8§]Žy…ö&mÌ/n~-K¦ËÄ‚ñS—O›6q‰.1Š0~ŒòLo“\·ÓßÉVfì“?°íf&nÑûzQ‹ØM”Ø<‰;¿}nã2^›9WŽÐeɺ¢ØøcG;AÄTÍ­p³CµeT´©ñ(Ãh*Çö±ðÍUböÜ'|Ýa~Ò^ÓR 4ÆVÀBFµ¿­SR±ìyÑJÎÜ¿F) 6¼ËÀ†ÿ~»øÀz¤F~…‘"™f¬(]­£*wŠñ8XvWœUô<@­ñ«›Yó5e8&;«r"Õ½úm2t~Ë ×2ißRhÃ{>=¶0ó:æêIÉÅV­BýÛ‡‰òþÕ®foå\êe·ÆÄó¦ŸÜ‡ù!tÛ:æ¿ÔØKŽýTwÃ÷ÐJK Àó?+ŸúnSìq û”áDÉX}®$5{zéþ{ß9¦æ #8^>Ðö¶ƒ‚Â]UÝús‚· ×ðчÈ1ßö¶ý„=pÄåé= WZn2Ô€¦‹ãÚKxaƒ†ö{ fg_Î` )b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy U N 0DO ê“ z} Ò÷ yÉ ^ B¨NVöÆLÆÆØÆžõdNY…[wàEä4æú  m ¼"""""""""""""""""""bÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ 0ëææææ BÑÑ 0¤î D3’ D-Å 0Kò ò AS=!Æ! 0¤V" 0Dú" A«>#˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó àÝ ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThese€two€entities€will€hereinafter€be€referred€to,€collectively,€as€ð ðThe€City.ðð ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt oÝ ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€preamble€to€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€states€explicitly€that€ð ða€substantial€threat€of€anticipatoryÐ ° Ðdemolition€of€properties€under€consideration€and€review€for€H„1€and€NC„1€overlay€designation€exists.ðð€€ëeO/Ï  žÝ ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„201€specifically€empowers€municipalities€to€regulate:Ð ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓthe€location,€height,€bulk,€number€of€stories€and€size€of€buildings€and€other€structures,€the€percentageÐ tÄ Ðof€the€lot€which€may€be€occupied,€the€sizes€of€yards,€courts€and€other€open€spaces,€the€density€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðpopulation,€and€the€uses€of€buildings,€structures€and€land€for€trade,€industry,€residence,€recreation,Ð üL Ðpublic€activities€and€other€purposes. LÝ ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€lower€court€found€thatÐ ° ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓIf€the€authority€to€adopt€Ordinance€0„119„00€is€vested€in€the€City€Council€of€the€City€of€Knoxville€asÐ tÄ Ða€moratorium€the€cases€are€clear€that:€(1)€such€ordinances€are€an€exercise€of€the€police€power€as€zoningÐ 8ˆ Ðnot€building€codes;€(2)€the€ordinance€must€be€adopted€under€the€applicable€procedural€authority€forÐ üL Ðzoning.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ëÝ ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€only€possible€source€of€confusion€in€the€statute€is€the€ð ðproposed€to€be€locatedðð€language.€€A€readerÐ ° Ðcould€possibly€mistake€the€phrase€as€meaning€that€the€statuteððs€authority€extends€to€demolition€in€proposed€historicÐ tÄ Ðdistricts.€€A€closer€analysis,€however,€does€not€support€this€reading.€€The€phrase€ð ðproposed€to€be€locatedðð€modifiesÐ 8ˆ Ðð ðbuilding€or€structure,ðð€rather€than€ð ðdistrict€or€zone.ðð€€This€means€that€the€building€or€structure€is€the€entity€yet€to€comeÐ üL Ðinto€existence,€rather€than€the€district€or€zone.€€Accordingly,€we€read€the€provision€to€apply€to€non„existing€buildingsÐ À Ðproposed€to€be€built€in€extant€historic€districts,€rather€than€to€existing€buildings€under€consideration€for€future€historicÐ „Ô Ðzoning. {Ý ƒRˆ‚$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àCharter€ðð€409€contains€several€procedural€safeguards€for€the€passage€of€normal€ordinances.€€ForÐ ° Ðexample,€each€ordinance€must€be€read€at€no€less€than€two€regular€city€council€meetings€at€least€two€weeks€apart,€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€proposed€ordinance€to€be€filed€in€the€city€recorderððs€office€for€public€inspection€during€the€interim.€€In€addition,€eachÐ 8ˆ Ðordinance€normally€takes€effect€seventeen€days€after€passage,€unless€otherwise€specified.€€=ƒ.ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  COA MPCMcClenahanTrigg E.ecCookeville HousAssnGovtdispositive- ù-(|G2ˆ‚$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®•ò»»Ô d(|3‡ƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼í»»»ÔÑ8€]ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î¼î»¼íÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼í»îî¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€20,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X]ÉX»¼íÔÌò òÔ#†¼í»XX]Éó#ÔCHEROKEE€COUNTRY€CLUB,€INC.òòóó€v.€CITY€OF€KNOXVILLE,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X]ÉX»¼íÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„136„02€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€OCTOBER€15,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01156„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X¸hXXX]ÉÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€dispute€over€the€validity€of€a€Knoxville€City€Ordinance.€€The€lower€court,Ð xÈ  Ðfinding€the€challenged€ordinance€invalid€and€void,€issued€a€Peremptory€Writ€of€Mandamus€requiringÐ d´ Ðthe€Chief€Building€Official€to€issue€a€demolition€permit.€€Subsequently,€the€court€entered€an€ð ðAgreedÐ P  ÐOrder€Granting€Temporary€Stay,ðð€whereby€the€plaintiff€agreed€not€to€demolish€the€structure€pendingÐ <Œ Ða€final€resolution€of€the€case.€€ò òó óThe€parties€raise€multiple€issues€on€appeal.€€For€the€following€reasons,Ð (x Ðwe€reverse€in€part,€vacate€in€part,€and€remand.Ð d ÐÔ#†X]ÉXXX¸hÞ#ÔÔ#†¼í»XX]É}#ÔÔ‡X]ÉX»¼íÔÌÓÒÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Reversed€in€Part,€Vacated€in€PartÐ Ø( Ðand€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼í»àX]Éñ#ÔÔ‡X]ÉX.¼íÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòHollyÐ œì ÐM.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌMichael€S.€Kelly,€Law€Director,€Hillary€B.€Jones,€Assistant€City€Attorney,€for€Appellant€City€ofÐ `° ÐKnoxville€Ð L œ ÐCharles€Swanson,€Jason€H.€Long,€Knoxville,€TN,€for€Appellants€Members€of€City€CouncilÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌCharles€A.€Wagner,€III,€W.€Turner€Boone,€for€AppelleeÐ #`" ÐÓ»ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼í»XX]Éê#ÔÔ‡X]ÉX»¼íÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼í»XX]Éb #ÔÔ‡X]ÉX»¼íÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X¸hXXX]ÉÔà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ À&"& ÐÌà  àIn€1999,€Cherokeeò ò€ó óCountry€Club€(ð ðCherokeeðð)€bought€a€parcel€of€real€property€located€onÐ ˜(è#( ÐLyons€View€Pike€in€Knoxville,€Tennessee.€€A€house€known€as€the€J.€Allen€Smith€House€(ð ðHouseðð)Ð ˆ)Ø$) Ðis€located€on€the€property.€€Cherokee€acquired€the€property€with€the€purpose€and€intention€ofÐ t*Ä%* Ðdemolishing€the€house.€Ð `+°&+ Ðâ âÐ L,œ',ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€January€17,€2002,€the€Mayor€of€Knoxville€filed€an€Application€for€Historic€OverlayÐ ° Ðâ âZoning€and€a€Re„zoning€Application€that€proposed€to€re„zone€the€property€in€question€as€an€H„1Ð œì Ðhistoric€district.€€Thereafter,€on€February€20,€2002,€Cherokee€applied€to€the€Building€Official€of€theÐ ˆØ ÐCity€of€Knoxville€for€a€demolition€permit,€but€the€request€was€denied.€€At€the€time€Cherokee€appliedÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€demolition€permit,€Cherokee€was€unaware€of€the€pending€re„zoning€application.€€The€denialÐ `° Ðof€the€permit€was€based€on€Knoxville€City€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00,€the€challenged€ordinance,€whichÐ L œ Ðstates:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓNo€demolition€permit€shall€be€issued,€for€a€period€of€180€days,€for€any€property€underÐ  ` Ðreview€and€consideration€for€an€H„1€overlay€or€NC„1€overlay€designation€after€theÐ ü L  Ðapplication€process€has€been€initiated€in€accordance€with€the€procedures€set€forth€inÐ è 8  ÐArticle€IV,€ðð€14€and€ðð€22,€respectively,€of€the€Knoxville€Zoning€Code.€€The€180€dayÐ Ô$  Ðperiod€can€be€extended€by€Knoxville€City€Council,€as€necessary.€€Ð À  Ѐ¹Ó X ÓÓ XÓThis€ordinance€was€passed€on€April€4,€2000,€using€emergency€procedures€and€thus€was€notÐ ˜è  Ðsubmitted€to€the€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission€(ð ðMPCðð),€nor€was€notice€of€a€hearing€given.Ð „Ô  ÐÌ€€à  àò òó óOn€March€8,€2002,€Cherokee€filed€a€Verified€Complaint€for€Declaratory€Judgment€and€WritÐ \¬ Ðof€Mandamus,€alleging€that€the€City€Building€Official€lacks€the€authority€to€deny€a€demolition€permitÐ H˜ Ðwhere€the€structure€is€not€currently€in€an€H„1€district€and€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€invalid.€Ð 4„ ÐCherokee€also€asked€that€a€Writ€of€Mandamus€be€issued€requiring€the€city€building€official€to€issueÐ  p Ða€demolition€permit.€€The€City€of€Knoxville€and€the€City€Council׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€filed€their€sworn€answer€on€AprilÐ  \ Ð4,€2002.€€Thereafter,€Cherokee€moved€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings.€Ð øH Ѐ€€Ð ä4 Ðà  àOn€April€12,€2002,€the€trial€court€granted€Cherokeeððs€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings,Ð Ð  Ðfinding€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€invalid€because€it€was€not€adopted€in€accordance€with€theÐ ¼  Ðmandatory€notice€and€hearing€requirements€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201€to€„211€(2003).€Ð ¨ø ÐIn€accordance€with€the€April€12,€2002€order,€the€Circuit€Court€Clerk€issued€a€Peremptory€Writ€ofÐ ”ä ÐMandamus€on€April€15,€2001€and€the€City€Building€Official€issued€the€demolition€permit€on€AprilÐ €Ð Ð16,€2002.€€The€parties€entered€into€an€Agreed€Order€Granting€Temporary€Stay€on€April€16,€2002,Ð l¼ Ðwhereby€Cherokee€agreed€not€to€demolish€the€House€pending€a€final€resolution€of€the€case,€and€theÐ X ¨ ÐCity€agreed€that€any€vested€rights€under€the€permit€would€not€be€affected.€€The€City€then€timely€filedÐ D!” Ðits€notice€of€appeal€from€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIssuesó óÐ $X" ÐÌÓqÓà  àòòóóThe€City€raises€the€following€issues,€as€we€perceive€them,€for€our€review:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àI.à0 ¸ àòòóóWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€void€forÐ ¸'#& Ðfailure€to€satisfy€the€procedural€requirements€applicable€to€zoning€ordinances;Ф(ô#'¸ (#¸ (# ÐÐ )à$( Ðà  àà ` àII.à0 ¸ àWhether€Cherokee€failed€to€join€necessary€parties€in€its€action€for€declaratoryÐ ° Ðrelief;Ðœì¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà ` àIII.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Cherokee€judgment€on€the€pleadings;Ðtĸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà ` àIV.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€issuing€a€writ€of€mandamus€to€the€ChiefÐ L œ ÐBuilding€Official€commanding€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit€toÐ 8 ˆ ÐCherokee.€ò òó óÐ$ t¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àCherokee€raises€an€additional€issue€for€our€consideration:Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àV.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€declaring€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€a€validÐ Ô$  Ðemergency€ordinance€under€the€Knoxville€City€Charter.ÐÀ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ „Ô  ÐÌÓ¶ Óà  àThe€standard€of€review€in€a€case€involving€a€grant€of€judgment€on€the€pleadings€is€set€forthÐ \¬ Ðin€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€769€(Tenn.€1991):Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓIn€light€of€the€fact€that€this€case€was€dismissed€on€a€motion€for€judgment€on€theÐ  p Ðpleadings€pursuant€to€Rule€12.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€we€areÐ  \ Ðbound€to€treat€as€false€all€allegations€of€the€.€.€.€moving€party,€which€are€denied,€andÐ øH Ðas€true€all€well„pleaded€allegations€contained€in€the€pleadings€of€the€.€.€.€opponent€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€motion.€€See€òòTrigg€v.€Middle€Tenn.€E.ec.€Membership€Corp.óó,€533€S.W.2d€730,Ð Ð  Ð732„33€(Tenn.€App.€1975).€€In€other€words,€on€an€appeal€from€an€order€allowing€aÐ ¼  Ðjudgment€on€the€pleadings,€as€in€this€case,€all€well„pleaded€facts€and€all€reasonableÐ ¨ø Ðinferences€drawn€therefrom€must€be€accepted€as€true.€€òòTriggóó€at€733€(citing€òòDarwinÐ ”ä Ðv.€Town€of€Cookevilleóó,€97€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.€1936);€òòRogers€v.€Rogersóó,€53€Tenn.€489Ð €Ð Ð(1871)).€€Conclusions€of€law€are€not€admitted€nor€should€judgment€on€the€pleadingsÐ l¼ Ðbe€granted€unless€the€moving€party€is€clearly€entitled€to€the€judgment.€òòTriggóó€at€733.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ XÞ!ÓÓ XÐ!Óò òÓ  ÓÌÓ§&Óó óòòIdóó.€€We€review€the€present€case€with€this€standard€in€mind.ò òÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ  ÓLaw€and€Analysisó óÐ $X" ÐÌò òI.€€Procedural€Requirements€of€Charter€ðð€410ó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€first€issue€that€we€will€address€involves€the€lower€courtððs€finding€that€Ordinance€No.€0„Ð ¸'#& Ð119„00€constitutes€a€valid€emergency€ordinance€pursuant€to€the€Knoxville€City€Charter.€€In€itsÐ ¤(ô#' ÐFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law,€the€lower€court€specifically€found€that€ð ðOrdinance€0„119„Ð )à$( Ðâ â00€states€sufficient€grounds€to€be€adopted€as€an€emergency€ordinance€pursuant€to€Section€410€of€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐCharter€of€the€City€of€Knoxville.ðð€€Section€410€of€the€Knoxville€City€Charter,€in€turn,€states€inÐ ° Ðrelevant€part:Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€council€may,€by€an€affirmative€vote€of€two„thirds€of€its€membership,€passÐ tÄ Ðemergency€measures€to€take€effect€at€the€time€of€passage.€€An€emergency€measure€isÐ `° Ðan€ordinance€or€resolution€for€the€immediate€preservation€of€the€public€peace,Ð L œ Ðproperty,€health€or€safety,€or€providing€for€the€usual€daily€operation€of€a€municipalÐ 8 ˆ Ðdepartment€in€which€the€emergency€is€set€forth€in€the€preamble€thereto,€and€theÐ $ t Ðdeclaration€of€emergency€by€the€council€in€the€ordinance€shall€be€conclusive€thereof.Ð  ` ÐÓ XR*ÓÓ XD*ÓÌThe€practical€effect€of€Charter€ðð€410€is€to€permit€the€expeditious€passage€and€immediateÐ è 8  Ðeffectiveness€of€an€ordinance€without€the€time„consuming€procedural€safeguards€normally€requiredÐ Ô$  Ðby€Charter€ðð€409.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Cherokee,€which€raises€this€issue€on€appeal,€contends€that€Ordinance€0„119„00Ð À  Ðfails€to€meet€the€requirements€of€Charter€ðð€410€because€it€does€not€properly€declare€an€emergency.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€disagree.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àCharter€ðð€410€permits€the€passage€of€an€emergency€ordinance€for,€among€other€things,€theÐ pÀ Ðimmediate€preservation€of€public€property.€€It€further€states€that€a€declaration€of€emergency€by€theÐ \¬ ÐCity€Council€shall€be€conclusive€as€to€whether€an€emergency€exists.€€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00,€onÐ H˜ Ðits€face,€satisfies€the€precepts€of€Charter€ðð€410.€€This€ordinance€was€passed€to€prevent€anticipatoryÐ 4„ Ðdemolition€of€property€being€considered€for€historic€overlay.€€The€ordinance€makes€clear€that€theÐ  p ÐCity€of€Knoxville€faced€a€ð ðsubstantial€threatðð€of€anticipatory€demolition€at€the€time€the€ordinanceÐ  \ Ðwas€passed.׃  ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Anticipatory€demolition€occurs€where€a€property€owner€demolishes€a€structure€on€hisÐ øH Ðproperty€before€an€historic€overlay€can€be€imposed€upon€the€property€to€protect€the€historicallyÐ ä4 Ðsignificant€structure.€€The€very€nature€of€anticipatory€demolition€presents€an€immediate€threat€toÐ Ð  Ðproperty€of€public€significance,€which€is€the€type€of€concern€contemplated€by€Charter€ðð€410.€€Also,Ð ¼  Ðthe€title€of€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€describes€it€as€ð ðAN€EMERGENCY€ORDINANCE€OF€THEÐ ¨ø ÐCOUNCIL€OF€THE€CITY€OF€KNOXVILLE.ðð€€This€constitutes€a€declaration€of€emergency€by€theÐ ”ä Ðcouncil€that€Charter€ðð€410€deems€conclusive€on€the€matter.€€In€sum,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÐ €Ð Ðfinding€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€satisfies€the€requirements€set€forth€in€Charter€ðð€410.€Ð l¼ ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€lower€court€on€this€issue.€€€Note,€however,€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðordinanceððs€status€as€a€valid€emergency€measure€only€takes€the€ordinance€out€of€the€scope€of€CharterÐ D!” Ððð€409's€procedural€requirements.€€There€still€remains€another€procedural€scheme€that€may€apply,Ð 0"€  Ðdepending€upon€whether€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€can€be€characterized€as€a€zoning€ordinance.Ð #l! Ðà  àÌÐ ô$D # Ðà@  ìàò òII.€€Procedural€Requirements€for€Zoning€Ordinancesó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àò òòòóóó óLocal€governments€lack€the€inherent€authority€to€control€the€use€of€land€within€theirÐ ˆØ Ðboundaries.€€òòFamily€Golf€of€Nashville,€Inc.€v.€Metro.€Govððt€of€Nashvilleóó,€964€S.W.2d€254,€257€(Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCt.€App.€1997).€€Such€power€resides€with€the€State,€and€must€be€delegated€by€the€General€AssemblyÐ `° Ðto€local€governments.€€òòIdóó.€€òòóóTennesseeððs€Municipal€Zoning€Statute,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ L œ Ð13„7„201€to€„211€(2003),€acts€as€such€an€enabling€mechanism€It€empowers€municipalities€to€regulateÐ 8 ˆ Ðvarious€aspects€of€land€use׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€through€the€enactment€of€zoning€ordinances.€€Included€in€the€MunicipalÐ $ t ÐZoning€Statute€are€certain€procedural€regulations€that€must€be€followed€by€a€local€legislative€bodyÐ  ` Ðwhen€crafting€a€zoning€ordinance€or€amendment€thereof.€€Specifically,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„202Ð ü L  Ð(2003)€requires€that€a€zoning€ordinance€originate€with€the€planning€commission€of€a€municipalityÐ è 8  Ðbefore€being€passed€by€the€municipalityððs€chief€legislative€body.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„203Ð Ô$  Ð(2003)€then€provides€that€a€public€hearing€must€be€held,€after€fifteen€days€general€notice,€before€theÐ À  Ðenactment€of€any€zoning€ordinance€or€amendment€thereof.€€Finally,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„204Ð ¬ü  Ð(2003)€states€that€no€amendment€to€a€zoning€ordinance€will€be€effective€ð ðunless€it€is€first€submittedÐ ˜è  Ðto€and€approved€by€the€planning€commission€or,€if€disapproved,€receives€the€favorable€vote€of€aÐ „Ô  Ðmajority€of€the€entire€membership€of€the€chief€legislative€body.ðð€€Any€zoning€ordinance€orÐ pÀ Ðamendment€thereof€is€void€if€it€fails€to€meet€these€statutory€criteria.€€òòHutcherson€v.€Crimeróó,€11Ð \¬ ÐS.W.3d€126,€134€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Supplementing€these€statutory€provisions,€Appendix€BÐ H˜ ÐArticle€VII€ðð€6€of€the€Knoxville€City€Code€provides€various€hearing€and€reporting€requirements€forÐ 4„ Ðproposed€amendments€to€any€zoning€ordinance.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€these€numerous€procedural€requirements,€the€key€issue€becomes€theÐ øH Ðcharacterization€of€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00.€€The€City€maintains€that€it€is€merely€a€buildingÐ ä4 Ðregulation,€not€subject€to€the€rigors€of€zoning€procedures.€€Cherokee€responds€that€the€ordinance€is,Ð Ð  Ðinstead,€an€exercise€of€the€Cityððs€power€to€control€land€use€by€zoning.€€In€its€findings€of€fact€andÐ ¼  Ðconclusions€of€law,€the€lower€court€agreed€with€Cherokee,€finding€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€isÐ ¨ø Ðproperly€characterized€as€a€zoning€ordinance.׃ d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€further€found€that€the€ordinance€did€not€complyÐ ”ä Ðwith€the€requirements€enumerated€in€the€Municipal€Zoning€Statute€or€in€Appendix€B€Article€VII€ððÐ €Ð Ð6€of€the€Knoxville€City€Code.€€As€such,€the€lower€court€declared€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€invalidÐ l¼ Ðand€void.€€We€disagree€with€the€courtððs€characterization€of€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00.Ð X ¨ Ðâ âÐ D!” Ðà  àAs€we€begin€our€analysis,€we€bear€in€mind€an€axiom€regarding€judicial€construction€ofÐ ° Ðâ âordinances.€€Courts€should€construe€municipal€ordinances€in€the€same€manner€as€statutes.€òòTenn.Ð œì ÐManufactured€Hous.€Assððn€v.€Metro.€Govððt€of€Nashvilleóó,€798€S.W.2d€254,€260€(Tenn.€1990)€(citingÐ ˆØ ÐòòCarroll€Blake€Constr.€Co.€v.€Boyleóó,€203€S.W.€945,€948€(Tenn.€1918)).€€Namely,€if€an€ordinance€canÐ tÄ Ðbe€construed€in€two€ways,€the€court€should€adopt€the€construction€that€upholds€the€ordinanceððsÐ `° Ðvalidity.€€òòIdóó.€at€260€(citing€òòRawlins€v.€Braswellóó,€231€S.W.2d€1021,€1023€(Tenn.€1950);€òòHermitageÐ L œ ÐLaundry€Co.€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€209€S.W.2d€5,€6€(Tenn.€1948)).€€Thus,€if€the€ordinance€at€issue€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðlegitimately€be€characterized€as€either€a€zoning€regulation€or€a€building€regulation,€we€are€bound€toÐ $ t Ðuphold€the€ordinanceððs€validity€by€construing€it€as€a€building€regulation.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThere€are€two€grounds€urged€upon€this€Court€for€concluding€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00Ð è 8  Ðis€a€zoning€ordinance,€subject€to€the€procedural€safeguards€detailed€above.€€The€first€is€somewhatÐ Ô$  Ðcircuitous,€beginning€as€it€does€with€the€Historic€Zoning€Statute.€€The€other€ground€is€more€direct,Ð À  Ðstemming€from€the€very€nature€and€function€of€the€ordinance€at€issue.€€Neither€ground,€however,€isÐ ¬ü  Ðultimately€persuasive.Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓA.€The€Historic€Zoning€Statute€ó óÐ pÀ ÐÌÓULÓà  àTennesseeððs€Historic€Zoning€Statute,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„401€to€„410€(2003),Ð H˜ Ðis€an€enabling€statute€that€empowers€municipalities€to€establish€historic€districts€and€regulateÐ 4„ Ðconstruction,€renovation,€and€demolition€therein.€€As€part€of€this€overall€statutory€scheme,€Tenn.Ð  p ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€13„7„404€(2003)€mandates€that€any€historic€zoning€regulations€must€be€adopted€eitherÐ  \ Ðas€part€of€a€new€zoning€ordinance€or€as€an€amendment€to€existing€zoning€ordinances.€€This€meansÐ øH Ðthat,€in€order€to€pass€historic€zoning€ordinances,€the€local€legislature€must€proceed€as€it€would€inÐ ä4 Ðenacting€or€amending€any€other€zoning€regulation.€€This€process€necessarily€implicates€theÐ Ð  Ðprocedural€requirements€of€the€Municipal€Zoning€Statute€and€the€Knoxville€City€Charter.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àCherokee€argues€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€falls€within€the€ambit€of€the€Historic€ZoningÐ ”ä ÐStatute€and€that,€consequently,€the€ordinance€is€also€subject€to€the€procedural€authority€for€zoningÐ €Ð Ðregulations.€€It€is€not€clear€whether€the€lower€court€relied€upon€this€reasoning€in€its€findings.€Ð l¼ ÐRegardless,€we€do€not€find€the€argument€persuasive.€€The€scope€of€the€Historic€Zoning€Statute€doesÐ X ¨ Ðnot€extend€to€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€and€cannot,€therefore,€serve€as€a€ground€upon€which€to€applyÐ D!” Ðthe€procedural€requirements€of€zoning€regulations€to€the€ordinance€at€issue.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àBecause€the€issue€before€us€deals€with€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit,€our€inquiry€intoÐ $X" Ðthe€scope€of€the€Historic€Zoning€Statute€is€necessarily€limited€to€those€provisions€regarding€theÐ ô$D # Ðregulation€of€demolition.€€The€crucial€provision€for€this€inquiry€is€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„402,Ð à%0!$ Ðwhich,€in€relevant€part,€empowers€the€legislative€body€of€a€municipality€to€ð ðregulate€the€construction,Ð Ì&"% Ðrepair,€alteration,€rehabilitation,€relocation,€òòand€demolition€óóof€any€building€or€other€structure€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðis€located€or€is€proposed€to€be€located€within€the€boundaries€of€any€historic€district€or€zone.ðð€Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(emphasis€added).€€The€plain€language€of€the€provision€suggests€that€the€statuteððs€authority€extendsÐ )à$( Ðonly€to€demolition€occurring€within€an€already€established€historic€district.€€Specifically,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðprovision€deals€with€the€regulation€of€demolition€ð ðof€any€building€or€other€structureðð€that€is€ð ðlocatedÐ h+¸&* Ðor€proposed€to€be€locatedðð€in€an€historic€zone.€€The€provision€makes€no€mention€of€regulatingÐ ° Ðdemolition€in€an€area€yet€to€be€named€an€historic€district.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€such,€the€scope€of€the€Historic€ZoningÐ œì ÐStatute€only€applies€to€municipal€ordinances€that€regulate€demolition€in€an€existing€historic€district.€Ð ˆØ ÐOrdinance€No.€0„119„00€regulates€the€issuance€of€demolition€permits€for€property€that€is€only€underÐ tÄ Ðconsideration€for€historic€zoning.€€The€Historic€Zoning€Statute,€therefore,€does€not€extend€toÐ `° ÐOrdinance€No.€0„119„00,€nor€can€it€provide€a€basis€by€which€to€apply€general€zoning€procedures€toÐ L œ Ðthe€ordinance.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@CCìàò òB.€€ð ðLand€Useðð€Regulationó 󀀈Ð  ` ÐÌà  àCherokeeððs€next€argument€for€characterizing€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€as€a€zoning€ordinance,Ð ì <  Ðand€subjecting€it€to€the€applicable€procedural€requirements,€arises€from€the€putative€nature€andÐ Ø(  Ðfunction€of€the€ordinance.€€Zoning€laws€regulate€the€use€of€land€and€buildings€by€depriving€aÐ Ä  Ðproperty€owner€of€a€use€of€the€property€that€would€otherwise€be€lawful.€€òòWilson€County€YouthÐ °  ÐEmergency€Shelter,€Inc.€v.€Wilson€Countyóó,€13€S.W.3d€338€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).òòóó€€The€lower€courtÐ œì  Ðfound€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€a€zoning€regulation€because€the€ordinance€ð ðat€least€indirectlyÐ ˆØ  Ðcontrols€the€rights€of€a€property€owner€to€make€what€is€otherwise€a€lawful€use€of€their€[sic]Ð tÄ Ðproperty.ðð€€We€disagree€with€the€lower€courtððs€characterization€of€the€ordinance.Ð `° ÐÌà  àTennessee€courts€have€not€directly€addressed€this€issue,€but€other€jurisdictions€have€indicatedÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€ordinances€similar€to€the€one€at€issue€do€not€constitute€zoning€ordinances.€€Instead,€theÐ $t Ðordinances€were€characterized€as€building€ordinances.€€For€example,€in€òòBittinger€v.€Corporation€ofÐ ` ÐBolivaróó,€395€S.E.2d€554€(W.Va.€1990),€the€West€Virginia€Supreme€Court€of€Appeals€considered€theÐ üL Ðnature€of€both€building€and€zoning€regulations.€€That€case€arose€from€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€aÐ è8 Ðwrit€of€mandamus€directing€the€issuance€of€building€permits€to€the€appellants.€€òòIdóó.€at€555.€€TheÐ Ô$ Ðappellants€were€initially€denied€twenty€building€permits€by€the€Bolivar€Town€Council€due€to€a€newÐ À Ðordinance€that€specified€certain€requirements€that€appellants€were€unable€to€meet.€€òòIdóó.€€AppellantsÐ ¬ü Ðthen€brought€suit,€alleging€that€the€relevant€ordinance€was€invalid€because€it€was€a€zoning€ordinanceÐ ˜è Ðand€was€not€enacted€according€to€proper€procedure€for€zoning€ordinances.€€òòIdóó.€at€556.€€On€appeal,Ð „Ô Ðthe€court€ruled€that€the€ordinance€was€a€building€regulation.€€òòIdóó.€€In€reaching€its€decision,€the€courtÐ pÀ Ðprovided€the€following€analysis:Ð \ ¬ ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓWhile€perhaps€confusing,€both€zoning€regulations€and€planning€or€buildingÐ 4"„  Ðregulations€involve€the€use€of€a€certain€area€of€the€community.€€The€distinguishingÐ  #p! Ðâ âfactor€between€the€two€types€of€permits€is€that€a€building€permit€involves€how€thatÐ  $\" Ðuse€is€undertaken,€while€a€zoning€permit€concerns€whether€a€certain€area€may€be€usedÐ ° Ðfor€a€particular€purpose.€€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ X;dÓÓ X-dÓòòIdóó.€at€558.€€According€to€this€reasoning,€the€critical€difference€between€the€two€types€of€ordinancesÐ tÄ Ðrests€with€the€role€of€each€in€land€use€planning.€€Zoning€ordinances€govern€òòwhat€óóuses€are€acceptable,Ð `° Ðwhile€building€ordinances€regulate€òòhowóó€those€uses€may€be€effectuated.€€Other€courts€have€relied€uponÐ L œ Ðsimilar€logic€in€differentiating€zoning€regulations€from€building€regulations.€€òòSee€Fairfax€MK,€Inc.Ð 8 ˆ Ðv.€City€of€Clarkstonóó,€555€S.E.2d€722€(Ga.€2001);€òòBaltimore€Heritage,€Inc.€v.€Mayor€and€City€CouncilÐ $ t Ðof€Baltimoreóó,€557€A.2d€256€(Md.€1989);€òòHeritage€Hill€Association,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Grand€Rapidsóó,€211Ð  ` ÐN.W.2d€77€(Ct.€App.€Mich.€1974).€€We€believe€this€line€of€reasoning€provides€the€most€helpfulÐ ü L  Ðanalysis€for€this€case.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àApplying€it€to€the€present€case,€we€find€it€apparent€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€a€buildingÐ À  Ðordinance.€€While€Cherokeeððs€property€is€being€considered€for€historic€overlay,€it€still€retains€its€R„1Ð ¬ü  Ðsingle„family€residential€district€status.€€According€to€that€zoning€classification,€Cherokee€can€makeÐ ˜è  Ðsix€uses€of€its€property:€(1)€detached€single„family€dwellings;€(2)€utility€substations€andÐ „Ô  Ðtransportation€easements;€(3)€accessory€uses;€(4)€accessory€buildings€and€structures;€(5)€signs;€andÐ pÀ Ð(6)€agricultural€crops.€òòKnoxville,€TN.,€Code€Appendix€B,€Article€IV,€ðð€2€(2003).€€óóOrdinance€0„Ð \¬ Ð119„00€does€not€affect€any€of€these€permissible€uses.€€Cherokee€is€free€to€engage€in€any€of€the€sixÐ H˜ Ðpurposes€for€which€the€property€is€zoned,€so€long€as€it€does€not€demolish€the€House€in€so€doing.Ð 4„ ÐOrdinance€No.€0„119„00,€therefore,€is€not€a€zoning€regulation.€€Instead,€it€is€a€building€ordinance,Ð  p Ðwhich€simply€involves€òòhowóó€the€use€of€the€property€may€or€may€not€be€undertaken.€€€€Ð  \ Ѐ€€€€Ð øH Ðà  àWe€also€note€that€our€characterization€of€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€further€justified€by€ourÐ ä4 Ðduty€to€adopt,€if€possible,€a€construction€of€the€ordinance€that€upholds€its€validity.€€òòSee€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐManufacture€Hous.€Assððn€v.€Metro.€Govððt€of€Nashvilleóó,€798€S.W.2d€254,€260€(Tenn.€1990).€€As€aÐ ¼  Ðbuilding€regulation,€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€not€subject€to€the€procedural€requirements€forÐ ¨ø Ðpassage€of€zoning€regulations€and€can,€therefore,€be€upheld€as€valid.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ ”ä Ðfinding€of€the€lower€court€and€hold€that€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€a€valid€and€effective€buildingÐ €Ð Ðregulation.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOur€holding€on€the€validity€of€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€dispositive€of€the€case,€so€it€is€notÐ D!” Ðnecessary€to€reach€the€merits€of€the€remaining€issues€on€appeal.€€The€lower€court€erred€in€grantingÐ 0"€  ÐCherokeeððs€judgment€on€the€pleadings€as€to€the€underlying€claims€for€declaratory€judgment€and€writÐ #l! Ðof€mandamus.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€lower€courtððs€holding€as€to€the€validity€of€Ordinance€No.Ð $X" Ð0„119„00€and€vacate€the€order€for€a€Peremptory€Writ€of€Mandamus.€ò òòòóóÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐConclusionó óÐ ° ÐÌÓñsÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€lower€court,€vacate€the€order€forÐ ˆØ Ða€Peremptory€Writ€of€Mandamus,€and€remand€the€case€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Ð tÄ ÐCosts€on€appeal€taxed€to€Cherokee€Country€Club,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÔ#†X]ÉXXX¸hî #ÔÔ#†¼í»XX]ÉÀ #ÔÔ€X]ÉX»¼íÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE