ÿWPC¤> E# ÖUNá %/ 0N5 0 éƒblw@t4´È×†ß 0De 0J© Nó D3õ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 ¶ m¸ 0Ï 1u_ 0dÔ B8U(>UB)“DC¼ AMÿU*LJv‹ÀK AQQÆ¢:h¢ 0DÀ 0@ 0DD D/ˆ B· Ô í&³|*æ/143 I4v~S7vÓÑ8˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(™(2¢Þ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑܰÑÑ„°ÑÔ€XN¤X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- é êEëUìíîïðÓ€ú[ûzƒ=#3|xûFamily Golf v. Metro Government - opinion Í 7 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(((('ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd38,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ7"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌOctober€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMetropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,€Tennessee,€Code€ðð€17.20.020Ï(1994)€(ð ðMetro€Codeðð)€describes€the€purposes€of€AR2a€districts€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThese€districts€are€designed€to€provide€suitable€areas€for€theÏgrowing€of€crops,€animal€husbandry,€dairying,€forestry€and€otherÏsimilar€activities€which€generally€occur€and€characterize€rural€ratherÏthan€urban€areas.€€These€districts€are€designed,€furthermore,€toÏprovide€for€very€low„density€residential€development€generally€onÏunsubdivided€tracts€of€land€whereon€public€sanitary€sewer€serviceÏand€public€water€supply€is€least€practical.€€These€districts€alsoÏinclude€community€facilities,€public€utilities,€and€open€uses€whichÏserve€specifically€the€residents€of€these€districts€or€which€areÏbenefitted€by€an€open€residential€environment€without€creatingÏobjectionable€or€undesirable€influences€upon€residentialÏdevelopments€or€influences€which€are€incompatible€with€a€ruralÏenvironment.€€Further,€it€is€the€intent€of€this€title€that€these€districtsÏbe€located€and€developed€so€that€urban€expansion€of€theÏmetropolitan€area€will€be€facilitated.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Metro.€Code€ðð€17.56.080€describes€the€purposes€of€CS,€commercial€service,€districts€asÏfollows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThese€districts€are€designed€to€provide€for€a€wide€range€ofÏcommercial€uses€concerned€with€retail€trade€and€consumer€services;Ïamusement€and€entertainment€establishments;€drive„in€stores,€eatingÏplaces€and€financial€institutions;€and€offices.€€The€uses€in€theseÏdistricts€service€a€wide€market€area€and,€therefore,€ease€ofÏautomotive€Ô_ÔaccessÔ_Ô€is€a€requisite.€€However,€it€is€not€intended€thatÏthese€districts€permit€uses€which€generate€large€volumes€of€truckÏtraffic.€€Bulk€regulations€are€designed€to€control€building€volumesÏsuch€that€compatibility€with€vicinity€residential€uses€is€promoted,Ïwhile€maintaining€maximum€flexibility€in€commercial€activities.€ÏAppropriate€open€space€between€commercial€and€residential€areas€isÏrequired€unless€appropriate€design€features€are€accomplished€underÏthe€planned€unit€development€procedures€for€this€district.Ì3789:Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMetro.€Code€ðð€17.24.030(A)(16)€(1994).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Metro.€Code€ðððð€17.12.080(10)€(1997),€17.60.020(16)€(1996)€(dry€cleaningÏbusinesses);€Metro.€Code€ðððð€17.12.080(11)€(1997),€17.60.020(C)(3)€(1996)€(gas€stations);ÏMetro.€Code€ðððð€17.12.080(4)€(1997),€17.60.020(C)(19)€(1996)€(auto€repair€shops).Ì(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó;;'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€the€property€is€located€in€a€floodplain,€Family€Golf€must€obtain€a€conditional€useÏpermit€from€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€for€any€use€of€the€property€other€thanÏð ð[Ô_Ôc]ropÔ_Ô€and€animal€raisingðð€or€a€ð ð[Ô_Ôp]lantÔ_Ô€nursery.ðð€€Metro.€Code€ðððð€17.116.020,€17.116.030Ï(1992).€In€addition,€all€structures€constructed€in€a€floodplain€are€subject€to€stringent€requirementsÏsuch€as€(1)€minimal€floor€elevations€that€are€equal€to€or€higher€than€the€ð ðflood€protectionÏelevation,ðð€Metro.€Code€ðð€17.124.360(B),€(C)€(1992);€(2)€placement€on€the€site€so€as€ð ðto€minimizeÏobstruction€to€the€flow€of€floodwaters,ðð€Metro.€Code€ðð€17.124.360(D);€(3)€being€firmly€anchoredÏto€prevent€flotation€and€movement,€Metro.€Code€ðð€17.124.360(E);€and€(4)€the€prior€approval€of€theÏproject€by€the€board€of€zoning€appeals€and€the€Director€of€Public€Works,€Metro.€Code€ððÏ17.124.360(A),€(F).€€It€seems€likely€that€most€structures€would€have€to€be€built€on€stilts€to€satisfyÏthese€requirements.€€Even€presuming€that€the€owner€of€a€dry€cleaning€business,€gas€station,€or€autoÏrepair€shop€could€comply€with€these€ordinances,€the€expense€of€doing€so€would,€as€a€practicalÏmatter,€make€the€project€uneconomic.€€€Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Metropolitan€Department€of€Law€must€provide€legal€advice€to€and€represent€theÏMetropolitan€Government,€including€the€Metropolitan€Council€and€the€planning€commission.€ÏCharter€of€the€Metropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,€Tennessee€ðð€8.602(a)„(c)Ï(ð ðMetro.€Charterðð).€€In€the€present€case,€the€Department€of€Law€is€representing€the€planningÏcommission€but€not€the€Metropolitan€Council.€€The€Council€has€not€retained€independent€counselÏeven€though€it€could€do€so.€€Metro.€Charter€ðð€8.607.€€Thus,€the€Council€is€unrepresented€in€thisÏproceeding€even€though€the€legality€of€one€of€its€ordinances€is€at€issue.Ì ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMetro.€Charter€ðð€18.02€reads€in€full€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àZoning€regulations€shall€be€enacted€by€the€council€only€onÏthe€basis€of€a€comprehensive€plan€prepared€by€the€metropolitanÏplanning€commission€in€accordance€with€the€applicable€state€lawsÏand€as€provided€in€section€3.05€of€this€Charter.Ìà8 àà8 àà àAny€revision,€modification€or€change€in€the€zoningÏregulations€of€the€metropolitan€government€as€provided€in€thisÏsection€shall€be€made€only€by€ordinance.€€Where€a€proposedÏordinance€revises,€modifies,€or€changes€the€zoning€regulations€andÏis€not€accompanied€at€introduction€by€a€favorable€recommendationÏof€the€metropolitan€planning€commission,€a€copy€thereof€shall€beÏpromptly€furnished€by€the€metropolitan€clerk€to€said€planningÏcommission,€and€the€same€shall€not€be€passed€on€second€readingÏuntil€the€recommendation€of€said€planning€commission€with€respectÏto€the€proposal€has€been€received€or€thirty€(30)€days€have€elapsedÏwithout€such€recommendation.€€No€ordinance€making€any€revision,Ïmodification€or€change€in€the€zoning€regulations€which€has€beenÏdisapproved€by€the€metropolitan€planning€commission€shall€beÏfinally€passed€or€become€effective€unless€it€shall€be€adopted€by€aÏtwo„thirds€majority€of€the€whole€membership€of€the€council€and€alsoÏthen€be€approved€by€the€metropolitan€mayor,€with€a€three„fourthsÏmajority€of€the€whole€membership€of€the€council€required€toÏoverride€a€veto.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€parenthetically€that€our€interpretation€of€Metro.€Charter€ðð€18.02€is€consistent€withÏthe€conclusions€of€other€courts€that€have€been€confronted€with€similar€issues.€€òòSeeóó€Young€ðð€5.06,Ïat€369„73.Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Ô_ÔMetro.€Charter€ðð€3.01.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÔ€*XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€Metro.€Charter€ðð€5.04,€the€mayor€may€veto€or€ð ðdisapproveðð€€an€ordinance€byÏreturning€it€unsigned€to€the€council€at€or€prior€to€the€next€regular€council€meeting€occurring€tenÏdays€or€more€subsequent€to€the€date€that€the€ordinance€was€delivered€to€the€mayor€forÏconsideration.€€The€mayor€may,€but€is€not€required€to,€attach€a€message€explaining€the€reasons€forÏhis€or€her€disapproval.€€If€the€mayor€does€not€return€the€ordinance€within€the€prescribed€time,€itÏautomatically€becomes€effective.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ò ° ÒÒ X ÒÔ_ÔÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦¤¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœ›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àÔ€*„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ3ÙßR€-/,A1-j|¬ýH` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€*¼ÔÌÌÌó óFAMILY€GOLF€OF€NASHVILLE,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3832„IÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9612„CH„00557ÌTHE€METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTà à)ÌOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSONà àà à)ÌCOUNTY,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLOR€ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌPeter€H.€Curry€à àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€G.€CrossÌTuke,€Yopp€&€Sweeneyà àà àà àà àà àMetropolitan€AttorneyÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€*„Ôò òVACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€*¼ÔÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÓ€ÓÔ€*„ÔÌÑ X ÑÑ ° ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€*¼ÔÌà àThis€case€involves€the€validity€of€an€amendment€to€the€Zoning€OrdinanceÏfor€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€intended€toÏpermit€a€€family€recreation€center€to€construct€a€go„cart€track.€€After€theÏMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€refused€to€amend€the€zoning€map€inÏaccordance€with€the€amendment,€the€operator€of€the€recreation€center€filed€aÏdeclaratory€judgment€action€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County.€ÏFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€struck€down€the€ordinance€because€itÏconflicted€with€the€General€Plan€for€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.€€TheÏoperator€has€appealed.€€We€have€determined€that€the€amendment€is€valid€as€longÏas€it€was€passed€in€accordance€with€the€super„majority€requirements€of€theÏMetropolitan€Charter€and,€accordingly,€remand€the€case€for€a€definitive€factualÏdetermination€of€that€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àFamily€Golf€of€Nashville,€Inc.€operates€an€outdoor€family€recreation€centerÏon€a€leased€4.32€acre€tract€at€the€intersection€of€Bell€Road€and€Blue€Hole€Road.€ÏThe€property€lies€near€the€Hickory€Hollow€Commercial€Center€and€is€located€inÏthe€œfloodplain.›€€Family€Golf€has€already€constructed€a€miniature€golf€course,€aÍdriving€range,€and€a€batting€cage€on€the€property.€€The€present€dispute€arises€outÏof€its€desire€to€construct€a€go„cart€track€and€an€arcade.€€ÌÌà àThe€property€is€presently€zoned€AR2a€which€permits€a€variety€ofÏagricultural€and€low„density€residential€uses.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Acting€on€the€advice€ofÏrepresentatives€of€the€Ñ ì ÑÑ H ÑMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€that€go„cart€tracks€wereÏnot€permitted€in€AR2a€zones,€Family€Golf€requested€the€Metropolitan€Council€toÏÔ_ÔrezoneÔ_Ô€the€property€to€place€it€in€a€CS€zone.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€record€does€not€contain€aÍprecise€explanation€concerning€why€this€rezoning€was€necessary.€€The€existingÏuses€of€the€property,€including€the€miniature€golf€course,€the€driving€range,€andÏthe€batting€cage€are€permissible€as€conditional€uses€in€an€AR2a€district€becauseÏthey€are€ð ðextensive€impactðð€community€facilities.× ƒ5 ××  ×€An€extensive€impact€facilityÏconducts€activities€such€as€ð ðboating,€picnic€grounds€and€racing€facilities€seatingÏover€twenty„five€thousand,€but€not€.€.€.€other€motor„driven€activities.ðð€€Metro.ÏCode€ðð€€17.12.070(E)(13)€(1997).€€Presumably,€a€large€motor€speedway€cateringÏto€professional€racing€is€permitted€as€a€conditional€use€in€an€AR2a€district€but€aÏgo„cart€track€is€not.€€òòSeeóó€Metro.€Code€ðððð€17.12.080(18)€(1997),Ï17.60.020(C)(18)€(1996).€ÌÌà àInterestingly,€the€planning€commission€opposed€Family€Golfððs€proposedÏordinance€even€though€it€had€earlier€recommended€that€Family€Golf€Ô_ÔrezoneÔ_Ô€theÏproperty€to€a€CS€district.€€The€planning€commission€took€the€position€thatÏrezoning€this€property€to€a€CS€district€would€violate€the€land€use€policies€inÏNashvilleððs€current€general€plan€entitled€òòConcept€2010€„€A€General€Plan€forÏNashville€and€Davidson€County€(1992)óó.€€Specifically,€the€planning€commissionÏpointed€out€that€its€plan€for€the€area€called€for€(1)€medium€density€land€useÏpolicy,€(2)€confinement€of€Ñ Ü ÑÑ ° Ñcommercial€activities€to€commercial€centers,€and€(3)Ïprotection€of€œfloodplains›€by€favoring€zoning€that€permitted€low€impact€uses.€ÏEven€though€the€proposed€go„cart€track€arguably€complies€with€these€criteria,Ïother€commercial€uses€permitted€in€CS€districts,€such€as€dry€cleaning€businesses,Íservice€stations,€and€auto€repair€shops,€do€not.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€While€technically€correct,€theÏplanning€commissionððs€concern€seems€to€be€somewhat€overly€cautious.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›ÌÌà àThe€Metropolitan€Council€eventually€adopted€Ordinance€No.€94„1222€thatÏrezoned€the€property€to€a€CS€district.€€Notwithstanding€the€Councilððs€action,€theÏplanning€commission€refused€to€amend€the€official€zoning€map€to€reflect€theÏzoning€change€in€the€ordinance.€€The€planning€commission€justified€its€conduct€byÏpointing€to€an€opinion€of€the€Metropolitan€Department€of€Law€that€a€zoningÏordinance€in€conflict€with€Nashvilleððs€general€plan€was€invalid.× ƒ> ××  ×€€As€a€result,ÏFamily€Golf€could€not€obtain€a€building€permit€to€construct€its€go„cart€track.ÌÌà àFamily€Golf€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€seekingÏa€declaration€that€Ordinance€No.€93„1222€was€valid€notwithstanding€the€planningÏcommissionððs€assertion€that€the€ordinance€was€inconsistent€with€NashvilleððsÏgeneral€plan.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€ordinance€was€inconsistent€with€theÏgeneral€plan€and€declared€it€invalid.€€The€trial€court€rested€its€decision€on€Metro.ÏCharter€ðð€€18.02€which€states,€in€part,€that€ð ð[z]oning€regulations€shall€be€enactedÏby€the€council€€only€on€the€basis€of€a€comprehensive€plan€prepared€by€theÏmetropolitan€planning€commission.ðð× ƒ? ××  ×€€This€appeal€by€Family€Golf€requires€us€toÏexamine€the€manner€in€which€the€Charter€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€ofÏNashville€and€Davidson€County€has€allocated€land€use€control€authority€betweenÏthe€Metropolitan€Council€and€the€planning€commission.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òLand€Use€Control€in€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyó óóóà àÌÌà àLocal€governments€lack€inherent€power€to€control€the€use€of€land€withinÏtheir€boundaries.€€This€power€rests€with€the€State;€however,€the€GeneralÏAssembly€may€delegate€it€to€local€governments.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenry€v.€Whiteóó,€194€Tenn.Ï192,€196,€250€S.W.2d€70,€71€(1952);€òòAnderson€County€v.€Remote€LandfillÏServs.,€Inc.,óó€833€S.W.2d€903,€909€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòState€ex€rel.€Browning„Ferris€Indus.€of€Tenn.,€Inc.€v.€Board€of€Commððrsóó,òò€óó806€S.W.2d€181,€184€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1990);€òòState€ex€rel.€SCA€Chem.€Servs.,€Inc.€v.€Sanidasóó,€681€S.W.2d€557,Ï562€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Accordingly,€local€governments€must€exercise€theirÏdelegated€powers€consistently€with€the€delegation€statutes.€€òòHenry€v.€Whiteóó,€194ÏTenn.€at€197,€250€S.W.2d€at€72.ÌÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€has€empowered€county€and€municipal€legislativeÏbodies€to€zone€property.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„101€to€13„7„210€(1992€&ÏSupp.€1996).€€At€the€same€time,€it€has€delegated€the€land€use€planning€function€toÏlocal€and€regional€planning€commissions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„3„101€toÏ13„4„309€(1992€&€Supp.€1996).€€The€power€to€zone€must€be€distinguished€fromÏthe€power€to€plan.€€ÌÌà àZoning€and€planning€are€complementary€pursuits€that€are€largelyÏconcerned€with€the€same€subject€matter.€€They€are€not,€however,€identical€fieldsÏof€municipal€endeavor.€€òòSeeóó€1€E.€C.€Yokley,€òòZoning€Law€and€Practiceóó€ðððð€1„2,€atÏ2€(4th€ed.€1978)€(ð ðYokleyðð).€€Planning€involves€coordinating€the€orderlyÏdevelopment€of€all€interrelated€aspects€of€a€communityððs€physical€environment€asÍwell€as€all€the€communityððs€closely€associated€€social€and€economic€activities.€€òòSeeóóÏ1€Norman€Williams,€Jr.€&€John€M.€Taylor,€òòAmerican€Land€Planning€Lawóó€ðð€1.05,Ïat€13€(rev.€ed.€1988)€(ð ðAmerican€Land€Planning€Lawðð);€Robert€W.€Phair,ÏòòPlanning€and€Zoning:€Principles€and€Practiceóó,€29€Tenn.€L.€Rev.€514,€514€(1962).€ÏIt€is€a€continuous€process€carried€out€indefinitely€through€time.€€Common€senseÏand€reality€dictate€that€a€general€plan€ð ðis€not€like€the€law€of€the€Medes€and€theÏPersians;€it€must€be€subject€to€reasonable€change€from€time€to€timeðð€as€conditionsÏin€the€community€change.€€òòFurniss€v.€Lower€Merion,óó€194€A.2d€926,€927€(Pa.Ï1963).ÌÌà àZoning,€on€the€other€hand,€involves€the€territorial€division€of€land€intoÏdistricts€according€to€the€character€of€the€land€and€buildings,€their€suitability€forÏparticular€uses,€and€the€uniformity€of€these€uses.€òòSee€óó1€Kenneth€H.€Young,ÏòòAndersonððs€American€Law€of€Zoningóó€ðð€1.13,€at€19€(4th€ed.€1996)€(ð ðYoungðð)Ï(citing€òòSchultz€v.€Prittsóó,€432€A.2d€1319,€1330€(Md.€1981)).€€Zoning€ordinancesÏare€now€the€most€important€and€prevalent€type€of€American€land€use€control.€ÏòòSeeóó€American€Land€Planning€Law€ðð€16.01,€at€434.€€These€ordinances€focusÏprimarily€on€the€use€of€property€and€the€structural€and€architectural€designs€ofÏthe€buildings.€€òòSee€In€re€Sundance€Mountain€Ranches,€Inc.,óó€754€P.2d€1211,€1213Ï(N.M.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòKaufman€v.€Planning€&€Zoning€Commððn,óó€298€S.E.2d€148,Ï153€(W.Va.€1982);€Yokley€ðððð€1„2,€at€14„15.€ÌÌÌà àThe€state€enabling€legislation€places€the€authority€to€plan€and€the€authorityÏto€zone€with€different€local€governmental€entities.€€Planning€is€entrusted€toÏappointed€municipal€or€regional€planning€commissions.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÍ13„3„101,€13„4„101€(1992€&€Supp.€1996).€€In€contrast,€the€zoning€power€isÏsquarely€placed€in€the€hands€of€the€local€legislative€bodies€because€the€power€toÏzone€is€viewed€as€essentially€a€legislative€exercise€of€the€governmentððs€policeÏpower.€€òòSee€Holdredge€v.€City€of€Cleveland,óó€218€Tenn.€239,€247„48,€402€S.W.2dÏ709,€712€(1966);€òòBrooks€v.€City€of€Memphis,€óó192€Tenn.€371,€375,€241€S.W.2dÏ432,€434€(1951).€€Local€legislative€bodies€may€enact€zoning€plans€recommendedÏby€planning€commissions,€but€they€are€not€obligated€to.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ13„7„102,€13„7„202.€€Local€legislative€bodies€may€also€amend€zoning€ordinances;Ïhowever,€they€must€submit€proposed€changes€to€the€planning€commission€forÏreview.€€If€the€planning€commission€disapproves€of€a€proposed€change,€aÏmajority€of€the€ð ðentire€membershipðð€of€the€local€legislative€body€must€approveÏthe€proposed€change€in€order€for€it€to€be€valid.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„105(a),€13„7„203(b),€13„7„204.€€Accordingly,€the€state€enabling€legislation€vestsÏthe€local€legislative€bodies€with€the€prerogative€to€make€final€decisions€on€allÏzoning€matters.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€SCA€Chem.€Servs.,€Inc.€v.€Sanidasóó,€681€S.W.2dÏat€564;€E.C.€Yokley,€òòThe€Place€of€the€Planning€Commission€and€the€Board€ofÏZoning€Appeals€in€Community€Life,óó€8€Vand.€L.€Rev.€794,€795€(1955).€€ÌÌà àLocal€governments€may€decide€for€themselves€how€best€to€exercise€the€landÏuse€Ìcontrol€powers€delegated€by€the€General€Assembly€as€long€as€their€decisions€doÏnot€conflict€with€state€law.€€In€the€case€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€ofÏNashville€and€Davidson€County,€the€Charter€Commission€allocated€portions€ofÏthese€powers€to€the€Metropolitan€Council€and€to€the€Metropolitan€PlanningÏCommission.€€Consistent€with€state€law,€the€Metropolitan€Council€received€theÏpower€to€control€land€use€in€the€city.€€òòSeeóó€Metro.€Charter€ðððð€2.01(25),€3.06.€€TheÍMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€was€vested€with€the€powers€ð ðgranted€.€.€.€byÏgeneral€state€law.ðð€€Metro.€Charter€ðð€11.504.€€By€allocating€the€powers€in€thisÏway,€the€Charter€Commission€stated€clearly€that€the€Metropolitan€Council€has€theÏfinal€say€over€zoning€matters.ÌÌÌà àThe€division€of€power€evident€in€the€state€enabling€legislation€is€mirroredÏin€Metro.€Charter€ðð€18.02€ð!ð€the€very€section€on€which€the€Metropolitan€PlanningÏCommission€relies€in€this€case.€€This€provision€states€that€a€proposed€zoningÏchange€that€has€been€disapproved€by€the€planning€commission€can€becomeÏeffective€only€if€adopted€by€a€two„thirds€majority€of€the€ð ðwhole€membership€ofÏthe€council.ðð€€If€the€mayor€vetoes€the€ordinance€containing€the€proposed€zoningÏchange,€then€it€cannot€become€effective€unless€a€three„fourths€majority€of€theÏð ðwhole€membershipðð€of€the€Metropolitan€Council€overrides€the€veto.€€TheÏprimary€difference€between€the€state€enabling€legislation€and€Metro.€Charter€ððÏ18.02€is€the€charterððs€requirement€that€changes€in€zoning€ordinances€that€areÏeither€disapproved€by€the€planning€commission€or€vetoed€by€the€mayor€canÏbecome€effective€only€with€the€vote€of€a€super„majority€of€the€entire€membershipÏof€the€Metropolitan€Council.€€à à€ÌÌà àThe€Metropolitan€Planning€Commissionððs€interpretation€of€Metro.€CharterÏðð€18.02€rests€on€its€perception€that€there€should€be€a€distinction€between€proposedÏzoning€changes€that€violate€the€general€plan€and€proposed€zoning€regulations€thatÏit€has€disapproved.€€The€former,€the€commission€contends,€are€invalid€under€allÏcircumstances;€while€the€latter€may€be€overridden€by€a€super„majority€of€theÏMetropolitan€Council.€€This€distinction€is€extremely€subtle,€especially€in€light€ofÍthe€unprecedented€shift€of€power€it€would€accomplish.€€It€is€also€not€supported€byÏthe€Metropolitan€Charter.ÌÌà àMetro.€Charter€ðð€11.505€states,€in€part,€thatÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[w]henever€the€commission€shall€have€adopted€theÏmaster€or€general€plan€.€.€.€thenceforth€no€street,€parkÏor€other€public€way€.€.€.€[or]€no€public€building€orÏstructure€.€.€.€shall€be€constructed€or€authorized€.€.€.Ïunless€.€.€.€approved€by€the€planning€commission;Ïprovided,€that€in€case€of€disapproval€.€.€.€said€council€byÏa€vote€of€a€majority€of€its€membership,€shall€have€theÏpower€to€overrule€such€disapproval.ÌÑ ì ÑÑ H ÑÌÓ€ÓThis€section€refers€to€the€ð ðgeneral€planðð€and€the€planning€commissionððsÏð ðdisapprovalðð€in€the€same€sentence€without€distinguishing€the€terms.€€There€isÏgood€reason€for€this.€€The€planning€commission€may€amend€the€general€plan€byÏresolution€at€any€time.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„4„201;€Metro.€Charter€ððÏ11.504(e).€€Therefore,€the€planning€commissionððs€approval€or€disapproval€of€anyÏproposed€zoning€ordinance€is,€in€that€sense,€synonymous€with€the€general€plan.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Metropolitan€Charter€does€not€distinguish€between€zoningÏordinances€that€are€contrary€to€the€general€plan€and€ones€that€have€beenÏdisapproved€by€the€planning€commission.€€Either€may€be€validly€passed€by€aÏsuper„€majority€of€the€Metropolitan€Council.€ÌÌà àHad€the€Charter€Commission€intended€to€give€the€appointed€MetropolitanÏPlanning€Commission€veto€authority€over€the€Metropolitan€Councilððs€zoningÏpower,€it€would€have€done€so€more€clearly.€€We€do€not€read€Metro.€Charter€ððÏ18.02€as€some€sort€of€surreptitious€departure€from€the€state€law.€€Instead,€weÏview€Section€18.02€as€clear€confirmation€of€the€important€advisory€role€theÏMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€plays€in€the€control€of€the€use€of€land€inÏNashville.€€By€requiring€a€super„majority€of€the€Metropolitan€Council€toÍoverride€the€planning€commissionððs€disapproval€of€a€proposed€zoning€change,€theÏCharter€Commission€intended€to€protect€against€random€or€ad€hoc€zoning€and€toÏensure€that€the€Metropolitan€Council€takes€the€carefully€crafted€general€planÏseriously.€€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€any€zoning€ordinance€that€conflicts€with€the€general€plan€orÏthat€has€been€disapproved€by€the€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission€isÏnevertheless€valid€if€it€was€enacted€in€accordance€with€the€super„majorityÏrequirements€of€Metro.€Charter€ðð€18.02.€€This€charter€provision€does€not€changeÏthe€balance€of€power€between€the€Metropolitan€Council€and€the€MetropolitanÏPlanning€Commission.× ƒ@ ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Enactment€of€Ordinance€No.€94„1222ó óóóÌÌÑ Ü ÑÑ ° Ñà àWe€must€also€determine€whether€the€enactment€of€Ordinance€No.€94„1222Ïcomplies€with€the€super„majority€requirements€of€Metro.€Charter€ðð€18.02.€€In€theÏabsence€of€a€mayoral€veto,€this€provision€requires€a€zoning€ordinance€to€beÏpassed€by€a€two„thirds€vote€of€the€ð ðwhole€membershipðð€of€the€council.€€Since€theÏMetropolitan€Council€consists€of€forty€members,× ƒA ××  ×€twenty„seven€members€orÏmore€must€vote€in€favor€of€the€ordinance€in€order€for€it€to€be€valid.€€If€theÍmayor€vetoes× ƒB ××  ×€the€ordinance,€three„fourths€of€the€ð ðwhole€membershipðð€of€theÏcouncil,€thirty€or€more€members,€must€vote€to€override€the€veto.€ÌÌà àThe€appellate€record€does€not€reveal€the€number€of€council€members€whoÏvoted€in€favor€of€Ordinance€No.€94„1222.€€Nor€does€it€reveal€when€the€ordinanceÏwas€delivered€to€the€mayor€for€consideration€or€what€disposition€the€mayor€madeÏof€the€ordinance.€€Since€the€Metropolitan€Council€enacted€the€ordinance€over€theÏplanning€commissionððs€objection,€it€seems€probable€that€at€least€twenty„sevenÏcouncil€members€voted€in€its€favor.€€Nevertheless,€the€record€does€not€reveal€theÏvote,€and€if€less€than€twenty„seven€council€members€voted€for€the€ordinance,€it€isÏinvalid.ÌÌà àBy€the€same€token,€we€can€only€speculate€concerning€when€the€mayorÏreceived€the€ordinance€and€what€he€did€with€it€after€he€received€it.€€If€he€signedÏthe€ordinance€€and€returned€it€or€held€it€for€more€than€the€time€provided€inÏMetro.€Charter€ðð€5.04,€then€the€ordinance€is€valid.€€If,€however,€he€vetoed€orÏdisapproved€the€ordinance€in€the€manner€provided€in€Metro.€Charter€ðð€5.04,€thenÏthe€ordinance€is€valid€only€if€the€Metropolitan€Council€overrode€the€mayorððsÏdisapproval€by€a€vote€of€three„fourths€of€its€entire€membership.€€There€is€noÏevidence€in€the€record€of€the€mayorððs€action€or€whether€the€Metropolitan€CouncilÏtook€another€vote€on€Ordinance€No.€94„1222.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó ó€ÌÑ H ÑÑ d Ñà@ àòòò òThe€Constitutionality€of€Ordinance€No.€94„1222ó óóóÌÌà àThe€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission€finally€asserts€that€Ordinance€No.Ï94„1222€is€unconstitutional€because€it€lacks€any€rational€or€justifiable€basis.€€ItÏargues€that€the€ordinance€amounts€to€spot€zoning€because€the€MetropolitanÏCouncil€singled€out€Family€Golfððs€property€for€rezoning€and€thus€conferred€onÏFamily€Golf€a€benefit€denied€to€similarly€situated€property€owners.€€Thus,€theÏcommission€contends€that€the€ordinance€does€not€legitimately€advance€the€health,Ïsafety,€morals,€or€welfare€of€the€Nashville€community.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àLocal€legislative€bodies€have€broad€discretion€in€enacting€or€amendingÏzoning€ordinances.€€When€the€validity€of€a€zoning€ordinance€is€fairly€debatable,Ïthe€courts€may€not€substitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€the€local€legislative€body.€ÏA€zoning€ordinance€should€be€found€valid€unless€it€is€ð ðclearly€arbitrary,Ïcapricious,€or€unreasonable,€having€no€substantial€relationship€to€the€publicÏhealth,€safety,€or€welfare,€or€plainly€contrary€to€the€zoning€laws.ðð€€òòMcCallen€v.ÏCity€of€Memphis,óó€786€S.W.2d€633,€640€(Tenn.€1990).€€Because€the€ð ðrationalÏbasisðð€test€is€the€most€deferential€form€of€judicial€scrutiny,€a€reviewing€courtÏshould€uphold€a€challenged€zoning€ordinance€if€there€is€any€possible€reason€thatÏcan€be€conceived€to€justify€it.€€òòFallin€v.€Knox€County€Bd.€of€Commrððs,óó€656ÏS.W.2d€338,€343„44€(Tenn.€1983).€€ÌÌà àWe€find€that€it€is€possible€to€conceive€of€reasons€to€justify€Ordinance€No.Ï94„1222.€€The€Council€could€very€well€have€believed€that€permitting€a€go„cartÏtrack€at€this€location€was€not€as€radical€a€departure€from€the€existing€uses€of€theÏproperty€as€a€miniature€golf€course,€driving€range,€and€a€batting€cage.€€TheÏCouncil€could€also€have€believed€that€the€surrounding€community€would€benefitÍfrom€having€this€type€of€activity€nearby€since€the€property€is€in€the€œfloodplainÏand€surrounded€by€land€zoned€for€agricultural€and€low„density€residentialÏdevelopment,€and€since€the€property€is€located€on€a€major€roadway€very€close€toÏHickory€Hollow€Mall,€one€of€Nashvilleððs€major€commercial€activity€centers.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€it€is€not€for€this€court€to€substitute€its€judgment€forÏthat€of€the€Metropolitan€Council.€€Hence,€Ordinance€No.€94„1222€survivesÏrational€basis€scrutiny€and€thus€passes€constitutional€muster.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€vacate€the€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€to€enable€theÏparties€to€introduce€competent€evidence€concerning€the€Metropolitan€CouncilððsÏand€the€mayorððs€actions€regarding€Ordinance€No.€94„1222.€€If€the€ordinance€wasÏenacted€in€compliance€with€Metro.€Charter€ðððð€5.02€&€18.02,€then€the€trial€courtÏshould€enter€a€judgment€upholding€the€validity€of€the€ordinance.€€We€tax€the€costsÏof€this€appeal€to€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌNOT€PARTICIPATING:ÌÌBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€JUDGE