ÿWPC®) ¾úCˆdKÒ×ÂÝù:²Ò×Â݈Iw^‡ÒzPG–{d¥ Ÿ «t}H¾yê†Xó~¶/>Û³VÁR0ß ÙE~ôJìŸ7ˆýS`#ïýÂTdØUºìòÅ6æ¼8ìïºo^ÅëÓ£IPrO µ;2ç(qNM=°~—žO3ÓƒÒµý_?#E¨ú»ò¢_öè?0í1.r¸o´¨MMêš®jïþy=@Û-W¢¬ lîZ5E7=ïC R0èÁ©ˆìÂl¾lÅìÝ DÆöÅ™þ‹4ôïÐ]cáåSœó¬$1ã+ɈNÈÓÎ$%-IOŸ~Á*Œb/Ú5œ N0zá*ýýß â-á®é5ts:%Û¥ó¯/Ÿ¬Á…e!i.ŸMgè%ýÙWNü£ésÙªëèh¢=°± bÇÊ‘ÂÈk«:—F¾§]"•Èd°ê}§@Å~³Ç\YÞßθCŠ´½|…Ôv9:æ­îÙw€áŸ¬+"=§û$ü½~[54wbØÜ‡­×li¨¶¡IÀ×ãè¬P5=¬ïµè‚£pýÁ¿÷¢ñ¤í¯íðÏ?1‹Ï2m °<°¾$­‡sÓíóÛÄÑH©N£>m ל™hb %\U@b 0ˆ¢^ *U N6w„4  z´Ò.   m  Æ( Æî Æ´ Æz #É@ N ¬  0D·Eû 0cý ` 1u€Õõ¦Ê 72p 0w¢ 0Š5 0 ¿ 0´_ 0Ç 0ÛÚ 0ïµ! 0D¤" 1‰è# 72q$q$q$q$q$q$b£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$ 0ë«$«$«$«$ B–%–% 0¤³% D3W& D-Š& 0K·&·& AS'ÆU' 0¤( 0D¿( A«)»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ód§v1 (í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularE„‚–0ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ¢Ý ƒR#®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±9 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Similarly,€we€note€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€misapprehended€the€rule€of€construction€that€requires€courts€toÐ ° Ðapply€an€interpretation€that€upholds€the€validity€of€a€building€ordinance€or€a€zoning€regulation.€€This€rule€of€constructionÐ tÄ Ðis€applied€in€interpreting€ambiguous€language€òòwithinóó€a€building€ordinance€or€a€zoning€regulation.€€It€does€not€apply€inÐ 8ˆ Ðdetermining€whether€to€characterize€a€land€use€restriction€as€a€building€regulation€or€a€zoning€ordinance.Ð üL Ð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à DrowotaSr.J. Ashea]fterMcClenahanc]onclusions f]orClarkstonMcQuillinRathkopfIredellunzonedrezoningSanibelBuntrockaffect[edBrowardBittinger T]heiMcMurtryMeighan SCAPoteatw]herecertif[yCoughlin3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ËÝ ƒR#®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±9 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€City€asserts€on€appeal€that€notice€was€provided€by€publication€and€by€posting€a€sign€on€theÐ ° Ðproperty,€Cherokee€maintains€that€it€had€no€notice€until€its€application€for€a€demolition€permit€was€denied.€€The€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðmade€no€factual€findings€in€this€regard.Ð 8ˆ Ð œÝ ƒR#®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±9 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Accordingly,€the€Cityððs€effort€to€characterize€the€ordinance€as€a€ð ðstop€gapðð€or€ð ðtemporaryðð€measure€imposingÐ ° Ða€limited€moratoria€is€unconvincing,€and€its€reliance€on€a€string€of€ð ðstop„gapðð€decisions€in€other€jurisdictions€isÐ tÄ Ðmisplaced.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€City€failed€to€cite€a€majority€of€decisions€that€require€the€application€of€zoningÐ 8ˆ Ðprocedures€even€to€ordinances€that€are€ð ðstop„gapðð€or€temporary€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó€2€Ziegler€ðð€11.13.€i)(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à Ý ƒR#®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±9 ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€a€result,€the€authority€relied€upon€by€the€City€involving€ordinances€intended€to€preserve€the€status€quoÐ ° Ðpending€the€implementation€or€consideration€of€a€pending€or€enacted€zoning€plan€are€unpersuasive.€€Indeed,€the€singleÐ tÄ Ðcase€cited€by€the€City€in€which€an€ordinance€prohibited€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit€ð ðfor€a€reasonably€limitedððÐ 8ˆ Ðtime€was€clearly€enacted€to€preserve€òòan€already€existing€historic€areaóó.€€òòHeritage€Hill€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Grand€Rapidsóó,Ð üL Ð211€N.W.2d€77€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1973)€(emphasis€added).€€€€(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù !"#$%x•¹Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List'&- ù-(|G2Æ“$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Om»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷ò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Om»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Om»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Om»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Om»»»ÔÑ8€ ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Om»»¼OmÔà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îÒÝOmÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Om»îîÒÝ+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€9,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ÉX»¼OmÔÌò òÔ#†¼Om»XX É#ÔCHEROKEE€COUNTRY€CLUB,€INC.€v.€CITY€OF€KNOXVILLE,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X ÉX»¼OmÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCircuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„136„02€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01156„SC„R11„CVññ€„€Filed€November€ññññññ12,€ññññññ22,ññññ€Ô_Ôññññ2004ññÔ_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Om»XX É–#ÔÔ€X ÉX»¼OmÔWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€the€validity€of€a€permanent€city€ordinance€that€prohibited€theÐ d´ Ðissuance€of€all€demolition€permits€for€property€under€consideration€for€designation€as€a€historicalÐ P  Ðoverlay€district.€€After€finding€that€the€ordinance€was€an€invalid€zoning€ordinance€because€the€CityÐ <Œ Ðof€Knoxville€failed€to€comply€with€statutory€planning,€notice,€and€hearing€requirements,€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð (x ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201ð!ð211€(1999€&€Supp.€2004),€the€trial€court€issued€a€peremptory€writ€ofÐ d Ðmandamus€requiring€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit€to€the€appellant,€Cherokee€Country€Club,Ð P ÐInc.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€holding€that€the€ordinance€was€aÐ ì< Ðbuilding€regulation€not€subject€to€the€statutory€zoning€requirements.€€After€reviewing€the€record€andÐ Ø( Ðauthority,€we€hold€that€the€ordinance€was€a€zoning€regulation€that€was€not€enacted€in€accordanceÐ Ä Ðwith€statutory€zoning€requirements€or€the€Tennessee€Historic€Zoning€Act.€€We€also€conclude€thatÐ ° Ðthere€was€no€error€in€failing€to€join€necessary€parties,€that€there€was€no€error€in€granting€the€motionÐ œì Ðfor€judgment€on€the€pleadings,€and€that€there€was€no€error€in€issuing€a€writ€of€mandamus.€Ð ˆØ ÐAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€and€reinstate€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð tÄ ÐÓýÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ L œ ÐReversed;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reinstated€ó óÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.,Ð #`" Ðóóandòò€Janice€M.€Holder,€William€M.€Barker,€JJ.,óó€and€òòJ.€S.€Daniel,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ôóó,€joined.Ð ü#L# ÐÌCharles€A.€Wagner,€III,€and€W.€Turner€Boone,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€CherokeeÐ Ô%$!% ÐCountry€Club,€Inc.Ð À&"& ÐÌRonald€E.€Mills,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€City€of€Knoxville.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌCharles€W.€Swanson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Members€of€the€City€Council.Ð p*À%* ÐÓ ÓÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ ° ÐÌBACKGROUNDÐ ˆØ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àIn€July€of€1999,€the€appellant,€Cherokee€Country€Club,€Inc.€(ð ðCherokeeðð),€purchased€fromÐ `° Ðthe€Coughlin€family€improved€real€property€at€5305€Lyons€View€Pike€in€Knoxville,€Tennessee,Ð L œ Ðwhich€included€an€unoccupied€house€known€as€the€ð ðSmith/Coughlin€Houseðð€or€the€ð ðSmith€House.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ ÐCherokee€Country€Club€bought€the€property€intending€to€demolish€the€Smith€House,€as€it€wasÐ $ t Ðsurrounded€on€three€sides€by€Cherokeeððs€recreational€facilities,€and€further€intended€to€utilize€theÐ  ` Ðproperty€within€its€current€residential€zoning.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€1999,€at€the€time€of€Cherokeeððs€purchase,€the€property€was€not€in,€nor€had€it€been€proposedÐ Ô$  Ðfor€inclusion€in,€a€historic€district.€€On€April€4,€2000,€however,€the€Knoxville€City€Council€(ð ðCityðð)Ð À  Ðenacted€emergency€demolition€ordinance€No.€0„119„00,€which€stated:€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNo€demolition€permit€shall€be€issued,€for€a€period€of€180€days,€forÐ „Ô  Ðany€property€under€review€and€consideration€for€an€H„1€overlay€orÐ pÀ ÐNC„1€overlay€designation€after€the€application€process€has€beenÐ \¬ Ðinitiated€in€accordance€with€the€procedures€set€forth€in€Article€IV,€ððÐ H˜ Ð14€and€ðð€22,€respectively,€of€the€Knoxville€Zoning€Code.€€The€180Ð 4„ Ðday€period€can€be€extended€by€Knoxville€City€Council,€as€necessary.€Ð  p ЀÐ ` x` x ÐRather€than€enact€the€demolition€ordinance€as€an€amendment€to€its€zoning€code,€the€City€elected€toÐ øH Ðpass€the€demolition€ordinance€as€an€emergency€ordinance.€€The€effect€of€the€Cityððs€action€was€toÐ ä4 Ðavoid€the€notice,€hearing,€and€review€requirements€of€the€traditional€zoning€statute,€òòseeóóTenn.€CodeÐ Ð  ÐAnn.€ðð€13„7„201€(Supp.€2004),€and€the€notice,€hearing,€and€review€requirements€of€the€HistoricalÐ ¼  ÐZoning€Statute,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„401€(1999).€€As€a€result,€Cherokee€was€unaware€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€ordinance€was€enacted.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOn€January€17,€2002,€Knoxville€Mayor€Victor€Ashe€filed€an€application€with€theÐ l¼ ÐKnoxville/Knox€County€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission€to€re„zone€the€ð ðSmith€HouseððÐ X ¨ Ðpurchased€by€Cherokee€two€and€one„half€years€earlier€as€an€H„1€historic€district.€€On€February€20,Ð D!” Ð2002,€Cherokee,€which€was€unaware€of€both€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€and€the€pendingÐ 0"€  Ðre„zoning€application€filed€by€the€Mayor,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€applied€for€a€demolition€permit€to€demolish€the€SmithÐ #l! ÐHouse.€€The€City€of€Knoxville€Building€Official€(ð ðBuilding€Officialðð)€denied€Cherokeeððs€applicationÐ $X" Ðfor€a€demolition€permit€based€on€the€application€for€historic€re„zoning€that€had€been€filed€by€MayorÐ ô$D # ÐAshe€and€the€language€of€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àOn€March€8,€2002,€after€the€governmental€action€denying€demolition,€Cherokee€filed€aÐ ° Ðcomplaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€County,€Tennessee,€seeking€a€declaratory€judgment€and€aÐ œì ÐWrit€of€Mandamus.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€enactedÐ ˆØ Ðin€violation€of€statutory€procedures€that€require€Planning€Commission€approval,€notice,€and€a€publicÐ tÄ Ðhearing€prior€to€the€enactment€of€a€zoning€ordinance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201ð!ð211.€€TheÐ `° Ðcomplaint€also€alleged€that€the€ordinance€was€enacted€in€violation€of€a€separate€set€of€statutoryÐ L œ Ðprocedures€that€require€Historic€Zoning€Commission€approval,€notice,€and€a€public€hearing€beforeÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€creation€and€regulation€of€a€historic€district€or€zone.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„401ð!ð410€(1999Ð $ t Ð&€Supp.€2004).€€The€complaint€requested€a€writ€of€mandamus€directing€the€Building€Official€to€issueÐ  ` Ða€demolition€permit.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€City€filed€an€answer€asserting€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€properlyÐ Ô$  Ðenacted€as€a€building€regulation€and,€therefore,€the€statutory€zoning€procedures€were€not€applicable.€Ð À  ÐThe€answer€also€alleged€that€Cherokee€failed€to€join€indispensable€parties€and€that€a€writ€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðmandamus€was€not€appropriate€since€Cherokee€had€not€exhausted€administrative€review€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐBuilding€Officialððs€action.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€April€12,€2002,€the€trial€court€granted€Cherokeeððs€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadingsÐ \¬ Ðafter€concluding€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€invalid€because€it€had€not€beenÐ H˜ Ðenacted€in€compliance€with€1)€statutory€provisions€that€require€Planning€Commission€approval,Ð 4„ Ðnotice,€and€a€public€hearing€for€the€enactment€of€a€zoning€ordinance,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„Ð  p Ð201ð!ð211,€and€2)€statutory€provisions€that€require€planning€approval,€notice,€and€a€public€hearing€forÐ  \ Ðthe€creation€and€regulation€of€an€historic€district,€òòseeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„401ð!ð410.€€The€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€ordered€that€a€writ€of€mandamus€be€issued€requiring€that€the€Building€Official€issue€aÐ ä4 Ðdemolition€permit€to€Cherokee.€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðinvalid€because€it€was€a€building€regulation€not€subject€to€the€statutory€zoning€requirements.€€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201ð!ð211.€€The€court€reasoned€that€the€ordinance€affected€òòhowóó€Cherokee€couldÐ €Ð Ðundertake€the€use€of€its€property€but€that€the€ordinance€did€not€affect€òòwhatóó€uses€were€permissible.€Ð l¼ ÐThe€court€also€held€that€the€Tennessee€Historic€Zoning€Statute€was€not€applicable€because€theÐ X ¨ Ðemergency€demolition€ordinance€did€not€apply€to€an€existing€historic€district.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð D!” Ððððð€13„7„401ð!ð410.€€(1999€&€Supp.€2004).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àWe€granted€Cherokeeððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà@ÓÓ!ìàòòStandard€of€ReviewóóˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àA€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€may€be€filed€ð ð[a]fter€the€pleadings€are€closed€butÐ )à$( Ðwithin€such€time€as€not€to€delay€the€trial.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.03.€€In€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ |*Ì%) Ðon€a€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings,€we€must€accept€as€true€ð ðall€well„pleaded€facts€and€allÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonable€inferences€drawn€therefromðð€alleged€by€the€party€opposing€the€motion.€€òòMcClenahan€v.Ð ° ÐCooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€769€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€addition,€ð ð[c]onclusions€of€law€are€not€admitted€norÐ œì Ðshould€judgment€on€the€pleadings€be€granted€unless€the€moving€party€is€clearly€entitled€toÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ tÄ ÐÌà@××!ìàòòZoning€RegulationsóóˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àCherokee€argues€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€passed€by€the€City€ofÐ $ t ÐKnoxville€in€violation€of€state€statutes€requiring€that€zoning€regulations€be€enacted€after€writtenÐ  ` Ðnotice,€a€public€hearing,€and€approval€by€the€local€planning€commission.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ü L  Ððððð13„7„201ð!ð211€(1999€&€Supp.€2004).€€The€City€of€Knoxville€responds€that€the€statutory€zoningÐ è 8  Ðrequirements€were€inapplicable€because€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€a€buildingÐ Ô$  Ðregulation€enacted€pursuant€to€the€Cityððs€general€police€powers€that€did€not€require€notice,€hearings,Ð À  Ðor€approval€prior€to€its€enactment.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAlthough€not€addressed€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€City€also€argues€that€the€ordinance€wasÐ „Ô  Ðproper€under€the€so„called€ð ðpending€ordinanceðð€doctrine€discussed€in€òòState€ex€rel.€SCA€ChemicalÐ pÀ ÐWaste€Services,€Inc.€v.€Konigsbergóó,€636€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€òòKonigsbergóó,€this€Court€upheldÐ \¬ Ða€county€resolution€prohibiting€the€issuance€of€construction€permits.€€òòId.óó€at€433.€€The€Court€explainedÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€resolution€was€an€ð ðinterim€ordinanceðð€that€preserved€the€status€quo€pending€the€effectiveÐ 4„ Ðdate€of€a€comprehensive€zoning€ordinance€that€had€already€been€properly€enacted€by€the€county.€€òòId.óóÐ  p Ðat€436.€€Unlike€òòKonigsbergóó,€however,€emergency€demolition€ordinance€No.€0„119„00€does€not€seekÐ  \ Ðto€impose€a€temporary€moratorium,€nor€does€it€seek€to€preserve€the€status€quo€pending€theÐ øH Ðimplementation€or€consideration€of€a€comprehensive€zoning€plan.€€As€a€result,€òòKonigsbergóó€is€notÐ ä4 Ðapplicable.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ìàòòTennessee€Statutory€Provisionsóóˆà È àÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€must€determine€whether€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€a€zoning€ordinance€orÐ €Ð Ða€building€regulation.€€Accordingly,€we€will€first€examine€Tennesseeððs€statutory€provisions€regardingÐ l¼ Ðzoning.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àLocal€governments,€including€cities,€have€no€power€to€control€the€use€of€land€unless€the€StateÐ 0"€  Ðof€Tennessee€delegates€this€power€to€them.€€Accordingly,€a€municipality€has€the€power€to€enact€orÐ #l! Ðto€amend€zoning€regulations€ð ð[f]or€the€purpose€of€promoting€the€public€health,€safety,€morals,Ð $X" Ðconvenience,€order,€prosperity€and€general€welfare.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„201(a)(1).€€This€powerÐ ô$D # Ðis€delegated€to€local€governments€by€the€Tennessee€legislature€and€includes€the€power€to€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àregulate€the€location,€height,€bulk,€number€of€stories€and€size€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðbuildings€and€other€structures,€the€percentage€of€the€lot€which€may€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoccupied,€the€sizes€of€yards,€courts€and€other€open€spaces,€the€densityÐ )à$( Ðâ âof€population,€and€the€uses€of€buildings,€structures€and€land€for€trade,Ð |*Ì%) Ðindustry,€residence,€recreation,€public€activities€and€other€purposes.€Ð ° Ѐ€€€Ðœì` x` x Ðâ âòòId.óóÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€the€exercise€of€its€zoning€authority,€the€state€requires€that€a€municipalityððs€planningÐ `° Ðcommission€must€ð ðmake[]€and€certif[y]ðð€a€zoning€plan€to€the€chief€local€€legislative€body.€€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€13„7„202.€€The€zoning€plan€must€include€ð ðthe€full€text€of€a€zoning€ordinance€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaps,€representing€the€recommendations€of€the€planning€commission€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Before€enacting€theÐ $ t Ðzoning€ordinance€or€any€zoning€amendment,€the€chief€legislative€body€ð ðshall€hold€a€public€hearingÐ  ` Ðthereon,€at€least€fifteen€(15)€daysðð€notice€of€the€time€and€place€of€which€shall€be€published€in€theÐ ü L  Ðofficial€municipal€journal€or€in€a€newspaper€of€general€circulation€in€the€municipality.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnn.€ðð€13„7„203(a);€òòsee€alsoóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„204.€€€€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThese€statutes€cover€a€broad€range€of€land€use€regulations€and€restrictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¬ü  Ððð€13„7„201(a)(1).€€In€addition,€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€statutes€reflect€the€legislative€intent€that€allÐ ˜è  Ðzoning€plans€and€zoning€amendments€mustò ò€ó óbe€scrutinized€by€municipal€planning€commissions€andÐ „Ô  Ðthe€public€prior€to€their€enactment.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„202,€„203.€€However,€becauseÐ tÄ Ðthese€statutes€do€not€address€the€issue€of€distinguishing€zoning€ordinances€from€building€regulations,Ð `° Ðwe€turn€to€other€authorities€for€guidance.€€Ð Lœ ÐÌà@× × ìàòòZoning€Laws€and€Building€OrdinancesóóˆÐ $t ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€the€mandatory€provisions€on€zoning,€a€municipality€has€the€authority€toÐ üL Ðenact€regulations€concerning€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€the€community€pursuant€to€its€policeÐ è8 Ðpowers€without€providing€notice€or€hearings.€€òòSeeóó€1€Edward€H.€Ziegler,€Jr.,€et€al.,€Ô_ÔRathkopfÔ_Ôððs€TheÐ Ô$ ÐLaw€of€Zoning€&€Planning€ðð€1.02€(4òòthóó€ed.€2003)€(ð ðZieglerðð).€€A€municipality€may€not,€however,Ð À Ðð ðevade€the€protections€thrown€about€the€citizenððs€use€of€his€property€by€the€legislative€limitationsÐ ¬ü Ðimposed€on€the€zoning€power€by€the€device€of€labeling€a€zoning€act€a€mere€exercise€of€policeÐ ˜è Ðpower.ðð€€òòEllison€v.€Fort€Lauderdaleóó,€183€So.2d€193,€195€(Fla.€1966).€€Ð „Ô ÐÌà  àThe€precise€contours€of€determining€when€an€ordinance€is€a€zoning€ordinance,€and€thusÐ \ ¬ Ðsubject€to€statutory€zoning€requirements,€however,€are€difficult€to€draw€or€define.€€1€Ziegler€ðð€1.02.€Ð H!˜ ÐA€review€of€decisions€in€other€jurisdictions€reflects€this€difficulty.€€òòSeeóó€òòFairfax€MK,€Inc.€v.€City€ofÐ 4"„  ÐClarkstonóó,€555€S.E.2d€722,€723€(Ga.€2001)€(stating€that€a€licensing€ordinance€that€€ð ðsomewhatÐ  #p! Ðconcerns€location€does€not€make€it€a€zoning€ordinanceðð);€òòSquare€Lake€Hills€Condo.€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô€v.Ð  $\" ÐBloomfield€Townshipóó,€471€N.W.2d€321,€322€(Mich.€1991)€(distinguishing€a€regulated€ð ðuseðð€fromÐ ø$H # Ða€regulated€ð ðactivityðð);€òòVulcan€Materials€Co.€v.€Iredell€Countyóó,€407€S.E.2d€283,€286€(N.C.€Ct.€App.Ð ä%4!$ Ð1991)€(zoning€ordinance€ð ðsubstantially€interferesðð€with€land€use).€€€€Ð Ð& "% ÐÌà  àOne€leading€authority€states€that€determining€whether€a€zoning€ordinance€exists€requires€ð ðaÐ ¨(ø#' Ðconsideration€of€the€substance€of€its€provisions€and€terms,€and€its€relation€to€the€general€plan€ofÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âzoning€in€the€city.ðð€€8€McQuillin,€The€Law€of€Municipal€Corporations€ðð€25.53€(3òòrdóó€ed.€2004)Ð €*Ð%) Ð(ð ðMcQuillinðð).€€òòSeeóó€òòSquare€Lake€Hills€Condo.€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ôóó,€471€N.W.2d€at€326€(quoting€McQuillin).€Ð ° ÐSimilarly,€another€prominent€treatise€has€explained€thatÐ œì Ðâ âÌà8  à€€€€€€à8` Ð Ð à[w]here€the€particular€restriction€constitutes,€or€would€constitute,€aÐ tÄ Ðsubstantial€interference€with€land€use,€the€municipality€ordinarilyÐ `° Ðmust€treat€it€as€a€zoning€regulation€and€must€follow€statutory€orÐ L œ Ðcharacter€zoning€procedures,€even€though€other€authority€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðparticular€type€of€ordinance€has€been€granted.Ð$ t` x` x ЀÌ1€Ziegler€ðð€1.02(3).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWhether€a€ð ðsubstantial€interferenceðð€with€the€use€of€land€exists€is€largely€a€case€by€caseÐ Ô$  Ðdetermination.€€òòId.óó€€In€òò3299€N.€Fed.€Highway,€Inc.€v.€Bd.€of€County€Ô_ÔCommððrsÔ_Ô€of€Broward€Countyóó,Ð À  Ð646€So.€2d€215,€224€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1994),€for€instance,€a€Florida€appellate€court€discussedÐ ¬ü  Ðseveral€ordinances€that€substantially€affected€land€use€and,€therefore,€required€planning,€notice€andÐ ˜è  Ðpublic€hearings€as€zoning€regulations.€€These€included€ordinances€establishing€a€minimum€distanceÐ „Ô  Ðbetween€businesses€selling€alcohol€and€residential€areas,€prohibiting€the€construction€of€homes€nearÐ pÀ Ðan€airport,€imposing€moratoria€on€the€issuance€of€building€permits,€and€changing€setback€and€heightÐ \¬ Ðrestrictions€on€the€construction€of€new€buildings.€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€The€court€contrasted€theseÐ H˜ Ðordinances€with€those€that€do€not€òòsubstantiallyóó€affect€the€use€of€land,€such€as€changes€to€fireÐ 4„ Ðregulations€or€construction€codes€governing€the€width€of€doors€and€aisles,€the€removal€orÐ  p Ðconstruction€of€walls,€and€building€materials.€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€in€òòCity€of€Sanibel€v.€Buntrockóó,€409€So.€2d€1073€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1981),€theÐ ä4 Ðcourt€held€that€the€Cityððs€ordinance€imposing€a€one„year€moratorium€on€the€issuance€of€buildingÐ Ð  Ðpermits€for€commercial€development€was€invalid€because€it€did€not€comply€with€zoning€statutesÐ ¼  Ðwhich€required€public€notice€and€public€hearing.€€Although€the€City€argued€that€the€ordinance€wasÐ ¨ø Ða€building€regulation€not€requiring€notice€rather€than€a€zoning€restriction,€the€court€held€that€theÐ ”ä Ðordinance€ð ðsubstantially€affect[ed]€land€useðð€and€must€be€enacted€in€accordance€with€applicableÐ €Ð Ðzoning€statutes.€€òòId.óó€at€1075.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFinally,€in€òòVulcan€Materials€Co.óó,€a€North€Carolina€case€with€strong€similarities€to€the€caseÐ D!” Ðbefore€us,€the€court€invalidated€an€ordinance€that€placed€a€sixty„day€moratorium€on€the€issuance€ofÐ 0"€  Ðbuilding€permits€pending€consideration€of€a€zoning€plan.€€407€S.E.2d€at€286.€€After€observing€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€ordinance€ð ðððhad€the€effect€of€making€the€unzoned€areas€of€the€County€subject€to€zoningÐ $X" Ðrestrictions€prior€to€the€adoption€of€a€zoning€ordinance€applicable€[in]€those€areas,ððððòòóó€the€courtÐ ô$D # Ðconcluded:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€an€ordinance€substantially€affects€land€use,€it€must€be€enacted€underÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€procedures€which€govern€zoning€and€rezoning.€€òòTo€entirelyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprohibit€a€person€from€building€upon€his€property€even€temporarilyÐ )à$( Ðis€a€substantial€restriction€upon€land€useóó.€€Consequently,€it€is€not€tooÐ |*Ì%) Ðmuch€to€ask€that€a€municipality€follow€the€same€procedures€withÐ h+¸&* Ðrespect€to€notice€and€hearing€before€it€puts€such€a€moratorium€intoÐ ° Ðeffect.€€Ðœì` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóóòòSandy€Mush€Properties,€Inc.€v.€Rutherford€Countyóó,€595€S.E.2d€233,Ð tÄ Ð236€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€2004)€(following€òòVulcan€Materials€Co.óó).Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€ð ðsubstantial€effectðð€analysis€reflected€in€the€above€authority€was€not€applied€by€the€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€Appeals€in€this€case.€€The€intermediate€appellate€court€instead€relied€upon€òòBittinger€v.€CorporationÐ $ t Ðof€Bolivaróó,€395€S.E.2d€554€(W.€Va.€1990),€in€which€the€court€said€that€the€distinguishing€feature€wasÐ  ` Ðð ðthat€a€building€permit€involves€how€that€use€is€undertaken,€while€a€zoning€permit€concerns€whetherÐ ü L  Ða€certain€area€may€be€used€for€a€particular€purpose.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€558.€€The€court€also€cited€òòFairfax€MK,Ð è 8  ÐInc.óó,€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€of€Georgia€emphasized€that€ð ðzoning€is€to€be€distinguished€fromÐ Ô$  Ðother€regulations€with€which€a€developer€must€comply,€such€as€requirements€for€a€building€permit.ððÐ À  Ð555€S.E.2d€at€723.€€We€note,€however,€that€these€decisions€did€not€consider€whether€an€emergencyÐ ¬ü  Ðdemolition€ordinance€ð ðsubstantially€affectedðð€the€use€of€land.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€resolving€this€issue€of€first€impression,€we€believe€that€the€determination€of€whether€aÐ pÀ Ðregulation€or€an€ordinance€ð ðsubstantially€affectsðð€the€property€ownersðð€use€of€land€is€a€well„reasonedÐ \¬ Ðand€persuasive€approach.€€This€analysis€avoids€the€difficulty€of€definitions€found€in€some€decisionsÐ H˜ Ðby€focusing€on€both€the€terms€and€the€effect€of€an€ordinance,€as€well€as€its€ð ðrelation€to€the€generalÐ 4„ Ðplan€of€zoning.ðð€€McQuillin€ðð25.53.€€The€analysis€is€also€more€comprehensive€and€more€precise€thanÐ  p Ðsimply€attempting€to€distinguish€whether€the€terms€of€an€ordinance€regulate€the€useof€land€or€howÐ  \ Ðthe€land€is€used.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€the€analysis€eliminates€the€risk€that€a€municipality€may€avoid€statutoryÐ øH Ðzoning€requirements€by€attempting€to€label€what€is€in€reality€a€zoning€ordinance€as€a€buildingÐ ä4 Ðregulation.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€adopting€and€applying€this€analysis€to€the€present€case,€we€conclude€that€emergencyÐ ¨ø Ðdemolition€ordinance€No.€0„119„00€substantially€affected€Cherokeeððs€use€of€its€property.€€ThisÐ ”ä Ðunusual€emergency€ordinance€was€permanently€enacted€to€prohibit€the€issuance€of€demolitionÐ €Ð Ðpermits€for€a€180„day€period€for€any€property€under€consideration€for€re„designation€as€a€historicalÐ l¼ Ðdistrict.€€The€180„day€period€was€renewable€by€the€City€Council€ð ðas€necessaryðð€and,€thus,€could€noÐ X ¨ Ðdoubt€be€extended€indefinitely€by€the€Council.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€not€every€regulation€relating€to€demolitionÐ D!” Ðis€a€matter€of€zoning,€the€broad€and€permanent€restrictions€in€this€ordinance€substantially€affectedÐ 0"€  ÐCherokeeððs€use€of€its€property€and€the€manner€in€which€Cherokee€could€effectuate€any€uses€thatÐ ° Ðremained€permissible.€€€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€not€related€to€or€necessary€forÐ tÄ Ðtemporarily€enforcing€the€status€quo€pending€the€implementation€or€consideration€of€an€existingÐ `° Ðcomprehensive€zoning€plan€or€amendment;€instead,€the€ordinance€permanently€prohibited€a€use€ofÐ L œ Ðproperty€pending€an€òòapplication€to€consider€óóa€historic€overlay€designation€without€undertaking€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðappropriate€planning,€providing€notice€to€the€affected€landowners,€or€conducting€public€hearings.€Ð $ t ÐMoreover,€the€City€had€over€two€years€from€the€time€Cherokee€purchased€this€property€in€which€toÐ  ` Ðestablish€a€historic€district€by€following€the€proper€statutory€procedure€but€failed€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€13„7„401€(1999)€(stating€the€procedures€for€creating€a€historic€district€in€accordanceÐ è 8  Ðwith€the€Tennessee€Historic€Zoning€Act).€€Cherokeeððs€proposed€use€of€the€Smith€House€property€wasÐ Ô$  Ðpermitted€under€existing€zoning€classifications€and,€according€to€its€complaint,€Cherokee€receivedÐ À  Ðno€notice€of€the€Cityððs€past€or€proposed€actions€until€the€denial€of€its€application€for€a€demolitionÐ ¬ü  Ðpermit.€€Given€these€factors,€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€substantially€affected€CherokeeððsÐ ˜è  Ðuse€of€its€property€and€created€a€zoning€ordinance€that€was€not€enacted€in€accordance€with€theÐ „Ô  Ðstatutes€requiring€planning,€public€notice,€and€a€public€hearing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201ð!ð211Ð pÀ Ð(1999€&€Supp.€2004).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€conclusion€we€have€reached€under€the€peculiar€circumstances€of€this€case€is€alsoÐ 4„ Ðconsistent€with€the€language€and€the€purpose€of€Tennesseeððs€statutory€zoning€law.€€The€terms€andÐ  p Ðeffect€of€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€clearly€fell€within€the€statutory€provisions€authorizingÐ  \ Ðlocal€governments€and€municipalities€to€regulate€ð ðthe€uses€of€buildings,€structures€and€land€for€trade,Ð øH Ðindustry,€residence,€recreation,€public€activities€and€other€purposes.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„Ð ä4 Ð201(a)(1).Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ð ¼  Ðà  àThe€State€of€Tennesseeððs€statutory€public€purpose€of€promoting€the€cultural€welfare€of€theÐ ¨ø ÐStateððs€people€by€enabling€municipalities€to€preserve€and€protect€historic€structures€as€visibleÐ ”ä Ðreminders€of€the€history€and€cultural€heritage€of€the€city€and€state€is€a€praiseworthy€and€admirableÐ €Ð Ðone.€€The€City€is€to€be€commended€for€its€historic€preservation€objectives.€€In€pursuing€its€objectives,Ð l¼ Ðhowever,€the€exercise€of€its€authority€must€comply€with€statutory€planning,€notice,€and€hearingÐ X ¨ Ðprovisions€to€balance€the€Cityððs€authority€with€the€interests€of€both€the€landowner€and€the€public.€Ð D!” ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„203€(1999).€€Indeed,€the€planning,€notice,€and€public€hearing€provisions€areÐ 0"€  Ðparticularly€essential€in€a€case€where€there€are€legitimate€interests€on€both€sides€that€must€be€resolvedÐ #l! Ðin€a€full€and€fair€manner.€€As€the€trial€court€also€observed:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€efforts,€however€desirable,€to€protect€our€heritage€and€historyÐ à%0!$ Ðmust€be€taken€within€the€framework€of€available€power€andÐ Ì&"% Ðprocedures.€€When€governmental€officials€act€for€the€benefit€of€theÐ ° Ðcitizens€it€must€not€act€in€a€manner€that€violates€the€rights€of€anÐ œì Ðindividual€citizen.€€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€emergency€demolition€ordinance€No.€0„119„00€was€invalidÐ `° Ðbecause€it€was€not€enacted€in€accordance€with€the€planning,€public€notice,€and€public€hearingÐ L œ Ðprovisions€of€the€applicable€zoning€statutes.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð39„7„201ð!ð211€(1999€&€Supp.Ð 8 ˆ Ð2004).€€We€therefore€reinstate€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€issuing€a€writ€of€mandamus€and€requiringÐ $ t Ðthe€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit€to€Cherokee€Country€Club,€Inc.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  à€€òòà@ìàHistoric€Zoning€StatutesóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àCherokeeððs€next€argument€is€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€enacted€by€theÐ À  ÐCity€in€violation€of€Tennesseeððs€Historic€Zoning€Statute,€which€requires€that€historic€zoningÐ ¬ü  Ðregulations€be€enacted€after€submission€to€the€planning€commission,€public€notice,€and€publicÐ ˜è  Ðhearings€as€a€new€zoning€ordinance€or€as€an€amendment€to€an€existing€zoning€ordinance.€€òòSeeóóTenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„401ð!ð410.€Cherokee€also€argues€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€wasÐ pÀ Ðwithin€the€scope€of€the€Historic€Zoning€Statute€because€it€regulates€the€demolition€of€structuresÐ \¬ Ðlocated€or€proposed€for€inclusion€within€historic€zoning€statutes.€€The€City€of€Knoxville€argues€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€ordinance€was€a€building€regulation€and€that€the€Tennessee€Historic€Zoning€Act€was€inapplicableÐ 4„ Ðbecause€the€regulation€did€not€affect€an€existing€historic€district.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€State€of€Tennessee,€through€its€Historic€Zoning€Statute,€enables€a€local€government€bodyÐ øH Ðor€municipality€to€establish€special€historic€districts€under€certain€conditions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ä4 Ð13„7„402(a).€€An€historic€district€or€zone€is€defined€as€an€area€that€possesses€a€ð ðsignificant€individualÐ Ð  Ðstructure€or€a€concentration,€linkage€or€continuity€of€sites,€buildings,€structures€or€objects€which€areÐ ¼  Ðunited€by€past€events€or€aesthetically€by€plan€or€physical€development€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„Ð ¨ø Ð7„404.€€An€historic€district€must€be€established€as€ð ðpart€of€a€new€zoning€ordinance€or€as€anÐ ”ä Ðamendment€to€existing€ordinancesðð€and€must€satisfy€one€of€the€following€statutory€requirements:Ð €Ð Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàIt€is€associated€with€an€event€which€has€made€a€significantÐ l¼ Ðcontribution€to€local,€state,€or€national€history;ÐX ¨¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  àà8` ` Ð ` Ð à(2)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àIt€includes€structures€associated€with€the€lives€of€persons€significantÐ 0"€  Ðin€local,€state,€or€national€history;Ð#l!¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à0¸ ` x` xàIt€contains€structures€or€groups€of€structures€which€embodyÐ ô$D # Ðthe€distinctive€characteristics€of€a€type,€period,€or€method€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðconstruction,€or€that€represent€the€work€of€a€master,€or€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðpossess€high€artistic€values,€or€that€represent€a€significant€andÐ ¸'#& Ðdistinguishable€entity€whose€components€may€lack€individualÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdistinction;€Ð)à$(¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)à0¸ ` x` xàIt€has€yielded€or€may€be€likely€to€yield€archaeologicalÐ ° Ðâ âinformation€important€in€history€or€prehistory;€orÐœì¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)à0¸ ` x` xàIt€is€listed€in€the€National€Register€of€Historic€Places.Ðtĸ x¸ x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„404(1)„(5)€(1999).€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€creation€of€a€historic€district€or€zone€requires€submission€of€a€plan€to€the€historic€zoningÐ $ t Ðcommission,€which€makes€written€recommendations€to€the€localò ò€ó ólegislative€body.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  ` Ððð€13„7„405(a),€(b).€€Prior€to€the€establishment€of€a€historic€district€or€zone,€the€historic€zoningÐ  P  Ðcommission€shall€adopt€a€set€of€ð ðreview€guidelinesðð€and€shall€provide€ð ð[Ô_Ôr]easonableÔ_Ô€public€noticeÐ ì <  Ðand€opportunity€for€public€commentðð€on€the€review€guidelines.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„406.€€OnceÐ Ø(  Ða€historic€district€or€zone€is€established,€a€local€governing€body€may€ð ðregulate€the€construction,Ð Ä  Ðrepair,€alteration,€rehabilitation,€relocation€and€demolition€of€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 œì  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„402(a)€(1999€&€Supp.€2004).Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€terms€and€effect€of€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€enabled€the€City€toÐ `° Ðcreate€a€de€facto€historic€district€for€the€specific€purpose€of€prohibiting€the€issuance€of€demolitionÐ Lœ Ðpermits€indefinitely€without€following€any€of€the€statutory€requirements.€€For€instance,€theÐ 8ˆ Ðemergency€demolition€ordinance€was€enacted€without€the€planning€of€the€historic€zoningÐ $t Ðcommission€or€the€consideration€of€the€regional€zoning€commission.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„Ð ` Ð403(a)€(1999).€€The€emergency€demolition€ordinance€included€none€of€the€findings€required€toÐ üL Ðestablish€a€historic€zone€involving€the€significant€historical,€aesthetic,€structural,€and€related€criteria.€Ð è8 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„404(1)ð!ð(5)€(1999).€€The€emergency€ordinance€was€enacted€withoutÐ Ô$ Ðrecommendations€submitted€by€the€historic€zoning€commission,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„405Ð À Ð(1999),€and€it€was€adopted€without€following€the€review€guidelines,€public€notice,€and€public€hearingÐ ¬ü Ðrequirements€set€forth€by€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„406€(1999).€Ð ˜è ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€substantially€affected€the€use€of€the€land€byÐ pÀ Ðcreating€a€permanent€moratorium€on€a€specific€use€of€the€property,€i.e.,€demolition,€withoutÐ \ ¬ Ðfollowing€the€required€statutory€safeguards€applicable€to€historic€districts€or€zones.€€The€state€statuteÐ H!˜ Ðprovides€that€a€municipality€may€enact€an€ordinance€to€prevent€demolition€of€a€structure€only€withinÐ 4"„  Ðð ðan€established€historic€zone€or€district.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„407(b).€€Moreover,€the€ordinanceÐ  #p! Ðmust€also€ð ðprovide€appropriate€safeguards€to€protect€property€owners€from€undue€economicÐ  $\" Ðhardship.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€effect,€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€allowed€the€City€to€circumvent€theseÐ ø$H # Ðsafeguards€by€imposing€a€permanent€moratorium€without€public€notice,€consideration€by€the€requiredÐ ä%4!$ Ðplanning€and€other€commissions,€or€any€of€the€other€required€public€notice€and€public€hearingÐ Ð& "% Ðstatutory€procedures.€€òòSeeóó€òòVulcan€Materials€Co.óó,€407€S.E.2d€at€286.€Ð ¼' #& ÐÌà  àThe€emergency€demolition€ordinance€had€to€conform€to€the€statutory€planning,€public€notice,Ð ”)ä$( Ðand€public€hearing€provisions€to€balance€the€Cityððs€authority€with€the€interests€of€both€the€landownerÐ €*Ð%) Ðand€the€public€as€provided€for€in€the€Tennessee€Historic€Zoning€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„401.€Ð l+¼&* ÐIndeed,€the€legislature€has€made€crystal€clear€its€intent€in€the€zoning€and€historic€zoning€statutes€thatÐ ° Ðlocal€governments€have€a€duty€to€comply€with€the€public€notice€and€public€hearing€requirements€ofÐ œì Ðthe€law.€€It€has€also€made€clear€in€the€sunshine€laws€that€local€governments€have€a€duty€to€provideÐ ˆØ Ðpublic€notice€of€governmental€action.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„44„101(a)(2002)€(ð ðThe€generalÐ tÄ Ðassembly€hereby€declares€it€to€be€the€policy€of€this€state€that€the€formation€of€public€policy€andÐ `° Ðdecisions€is€public€business€and€shall€not€be€conducted€in€secret.ðð).€€Local€governments€in€complyingÐ L œ Ðwith€the€letter€and€spirit€of€these€laws€should€aspire€to€provide€public€notice€of€all€governmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðaction.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àGiven€these€circumstances,€we€disagree€with€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€reasoning€that€theÐ ü L  ÐHistoric€Zoning€Statutes€were€inapplicable€since€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€did€not€affectÐ è 8  Ðan€ð ðexisting€historic€district€or€zoneðð€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€13„7„402.€€Indeed,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€Court€of€Appealsðð€rationale€would€allow€municipalities€to€impose€innumerable€restrictions€byÐ À  Ðcreating€de€facto€historic€districts€without€adhering€to€the€statutory€safeguards.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€likewise€disagree€with€the€Cityððs€contention€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinanceÐ „Ô  Ðwas€necessary€as€the€only€means€for€preserving€the€status€quo€pending€the€consideration€of€a€historicÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€or€zone.€€Indeed,€the€Cityððs€unilateral€enactment€of€a€permanent€ordinance€without€followingÐ \¬ Ðstatutory€requirements€for€planning,€public€notice,€and€public€hearing€is€not€the€appropriate€or€theÐ H˜ Ðonly€means€for€obtaining€such€relief.€€Instead,€the€City€may€always€file€a€public€complaint€seekingÐ 4„ Ða€temporary€restraining€order€or€other€injunctive€relief€so€that€a€court€can€make€the€appropriateÐ  p Ðfindings€with€notice€and€hearing€in€a€full€and€fair€manner.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€conclude€that€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€was€invalid€because€it€was€notÐ ä4 Ðenacted€in€accordance€with€applicable€historic€zoning€statutes.€€Accordingly,€we€also€reinstate€on€thisÐ Ð  Ðseparate€ground€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€issuing€a€writ€of€mandamus€requiring€the€issuance€of€aÐ ¼  Ðdemolition€permit€to€Cherokee€Country€Club,€Inc.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà@++"ìàòòRemaining€IssuesóóˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àGiven€our€conclusion€that€Knoxville€City€Ordinance€No.€0„119„00€is€invalid,€we€mustÐ X ¨ Ðaddress€the€remaining€procedural€issues€raised€by€the€City€in€this€appeal.€€We€will€address€each€inÐ D!” Ðturn.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà@ggìàòòJoinder€of€Necessary€PartiesóóˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àThe€City€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€relief€because€Cherokee€failed€to€joinÐ à%0!$ Ðother€necessary€parties,€including€other€affected€property€owners€within€the€area€being€consideredÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€designation€as€a€historic€district.€€Cherokee€maintains€that€the€City€failed€to€show€that€otherÐ ¸'#& Ðparties€were€indispensable€in€resolving€this€action,€as€no€other€party€had€an€interest€in€the€demolitionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€a€structure€located€on€Cherokeeððs€property.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àJoinder€of€persons€ð ðneeded€for€just€adjudicationðð€is€addressed€in€Rule€19.01€of€the€TennesseeÐ ° Ðâ âRules€of€Civil€Procedure:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€person€who€is€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€shall€be€joinedÐ tÄ Ðas€a€party€if€(1)€in€the€personððs€absence€complete€relief€cannot€beÐ `° Ðaccorded€among€those€already€parties,€or€(2)€the€person€claims€anÐ L œ Ðinterest€relating€to€the€subject€of€the€action€and€is€so€situated€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdisposition€of€the€action€in€the€personððs€absence€may€(i)€as€a€practicalÐ $ t Ðmatter€impair€or€impede€the€personððs€ability€to€protect€that€interest€orÐ  ` Ð(ii)€leave€any€of€the€persons€already€parties€subject€to€a€substantialÐ ü L  Ðrisk€of€incurring€double,€multiple,€or€otherwise€inconsistentÐ è 8  Ðobligations€by€reasons€of€the€claimed€interest.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€19.01.€€The€rule€protects€absent€persons€and€parties€from€multiple€litigation€andÐ ¬ü  Ðinconsistent€obligations.€€òòSamuelson€v.€McMurtryóó,€962€S.W.2d€473€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Cityððs€argument€that€Cherokee€failed€to€join€other€property€owners€who€were€affectedÐ pÀ Ðby€the€consideration€for€a€historical€district€designation€is€not€persuasive€for€several€reasons.€€First,Ð \¬ Ðthe€narrow€issue€in€this€case€is€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permit€for€a€structure€located€on€propertyÐ H˜ Ðowned€by€Cherokee.€€Second,€the€City€has€mixed€the€determinative€legal€issue€in€this€case,€i.e.,€theÐ 4„ Ðvalidity€of€the€emergency€demolition,€with€the€interests€of€those€affected€by€the€consideration€of€aÐ  p Ðproposed€historical€district.€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€ordinance€was€a€zoning€ordinanceÐ  \ Ðsubject€to€statutory€zoning€laws€requiring€planning,€public€notice,€and€public€hearing,€however,€didÐ øH Ðnot€hinge€upon€or€require€litigation€of€the€interests€of€all€those€affected€by€the€underlying€proposedÐ ä4 Ðhistorical€district.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€did€not€leave€any€property€owners€subjectÐ Ð  Ðto€multiple€or€inconsistent€obligations.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€there€was€no€error€in€failing€to€join€other€affected€property€owners€in€this€case.€òòÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà@¯¯ìàJudgment€on€the€PleadingsˆÐ l¼ ÐÌóóà  àThe€City€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€on€Cherokeeððs€ð ðmotion€for€judgment€onÐ D!” Ðthe€pleadingsðð€because€the€motion€was€filed€before€the€pleadings€were€closed.€€Cherokee€maintainsÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€trial€court€properly€granted€its€motion.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€resolution€of€this€issue€is€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€A€motionÐ ô$D # Ðfor€judgment€on€the€pleadings€may€be€filed€ð ð[a]fter€the€pleadings€are€closed€but€within€such€time€asÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€to€delay€the€trial.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.03.€€Rule€7.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ Ì&"% Ðstates€as€follows:€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€shall€be€a€complaint€and€an€answer;€and€there€shall€be€a€replyÐ )à$( Ðto€a€counterclaim€denominated€as€such;€an€answer€to€a€cross„claim,Ð |*Ì%) Ðif€the€answer€contains€a€cross„claim;€a€third„party€complaint,€if€aÐ h+¸&* Ðperson€who€was€not€an€original€party€is€summonsed€under€theÐ ° Ðprovisions€of€Rule€14;€and€there€shall€be€a€third„party€answer,€if€aÐ œì Ðthird„party€complaint€is€served.€€òòNo€other€pleading€shall€beÐ ˆØ Ðallowedóó....€ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€7.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ L œ ÐCivil€Procedure€state€that€the€rule€ð ðadopts€the€federal€practice€of€cutting€off€pleadings€afterÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomplaints€and€answer,€except€that€a€reply€or€answer€by€plaintiff€is€allowed€in€cases€of€counterclaimÐ $ t Ðand€cross„claim,€and€a€third„party€answer€is€allowed€where€a€third„party€complaint€is€filed.ðð€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Cherokee€filed€a€complaint,€and€the€City€filed€an€answer.€€The€Cityððs€answer€didÐ è 8  Ðnot€contain€a€counterclaim.€€Under€Rule€7.01,€ð ðno€other€pleadingðð€was€permitted€at€that€point.€Ð Ô$  ÐAccordingly,€Cherokeeððs€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€was€filed€after€the€pleadings€wereÐ À  Ðclosed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€City€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€treated€the€motion€as€a€motion€for€summaryÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment€because€it€contained€a€copy€of€the€ordinance€being€challenged€by€Cherokee,€as€well€asÐ pÀ Ðcopies€of€general€city€charter€and€city€code€provisions.€€Cherokee€maintains€that€the€trial€court€didÐ \¬ Ðnot€err€in€considering€a€copy€of€the€ordinance€underlying€this€action€or€any€other€materials.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àRule€12.03€of€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€states€that€if€ð ðmatters€outside€the€pleadings€areÐ  p Ðpresented€to€and€not€excluded€by€the€court,€the€motion€shall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgmentÐ  \ Ðand€disposed€of€as€provided€in€Rule€56€.€.€.€.ðð€€In€this€case,€Cherokeeððs€complaint€challenged€theÐ øH Ðvalidity€of€emergency€ordinance€No.€0„119„00.€€Cherokeeððs€complaint€and€the€Cityððs€answer€referredÐ ä4 Ðto€the€emergency€ordinance€in€great€detail.€€Cherokee€and€the€City€submitted€certified€copies€of€theÐ Ð  Ðordinance€for€the€trial€courtððs€consideration.€€In€our€view,€copies€of€the€emergency€ordinance€underÐ ¼  Ðconsideration€and€the€related€city€charter€and€code€provisions€did€not€raise€matters€of€law€or€fact€thatÐ ¨ø Ðwere€ð ðoutside€the€pleadings.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.03.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÐ ”ä Ðruling€on€the€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àòòà@00&ìàMandamusóóˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€City€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€issuing€a€writ€of€mandamus€and€that€CherokeeÐ 0"€  Ðfailed€to€exhaust€its€administrative€remedies€by€not€appealing€the€denial€of€the€demolition€permit€byÐ #l! Ðthe€Building€Official€to€the€Building€Board€of€Adjustments€and€Appeals.€€Cherokee€asserts€that€aÐ $X" Ðwrit€of€mandamus€was€appropriate€for€the€issuance€of€the€permit€and€that€the€exhaustion€of€remediesÐ ô$D # Ðdoctrine€was€inapplicable€under€this€circumstances€of€this€case.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àA€writ€of€mandamus€is€an€extraordinary€remedy€that€may€be€issued€where€a€right€has€beenÐ ¸'#& Ðclearly€established€and€ð ðthere€is€no€other€plain,€adequate,€and€complete€method€of€obtaining€the€reliefÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€which€one€is€entitled.ðð€€òòMeighan€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óó,€942€S.W.2d€476,€479€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð1997).€€Although€most€often€addressed€to€ministerial€acts,€mandamus€may€be€addressed€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscretionary€acts€when€an€act€is€ð ðððarbitrary€and€oppressiveðððð€or€where€there€has€been€a€ð ðððplainlyÐ h+¸&* Ðpalpableðððð€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòPeerless€Constr.€Co.€v€Bassóó,€14€S.W.2d€732,€733€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1929)).€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€in€this€case.€€òòStateÐ tÄ Ðex€rel.€Poteat€v.€Bowmanóó,€491€S.W.2d€77,€80€(Tenn.€1973)€(mandamus€is€proper€to€challenge€anÐ `° Ðordinance€as€not€properly€adopted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€ex€rel.€SCA€Chemical€Waste€Services,€Inc.€v.Ð L œ ÐKonigsbergóó,€636€S.W.2d€at€434€(mandamus€may€be€employed€ð ðto€determine€the€constitutionalÐ 8 ˆ Ðvalidity€of€a€statute,€ordinance€or€other€legal€directive€that€on€its€face€requires€that€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðofficial€shall€not€perform€the€act€sought€to€be€required€.€.€.€.ðð).€€The€record€shows€that€CherokeeÐ  ` Ðchallenged€the€validity€of€the€emergency€demolition€ordinance€on€a€number€of€grounds;€it€did€not,Ð ü L  Ðhowever,€challenge€the€Building€Officialððs€discretion€in€denying€a€demolition€permit€based€on€theÐ è 8  Ðordinance.€€As€a€result,€an€administrative€appeal€to€the€Building€Board€of€Adjustments€and€Appeals,Ð Ô$  Ðwhich€would€have€been€limited€to€review€of€the€Building€Officialððs€discretion,€would€have€affordedÐ À  Ðno€review€over€the€key€issues€and€would€have€afforded€no€possible€remedy.€€As€this€Court€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðexplained,€the€issuance€of€mandamus€may€be€prevented€only€if€another€remedy€is€ð ðequally€asÐ ˜è  Ðconvenient,€complete,€beneficial,€and€effective€as€mandamus,ðð€and€is€ð ðsufficiently€speedy€to€preventÐ „Ô  Ðmaterial€injury.ðð€€òòMeighanóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€479.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€issued€a€writ€of€mandamus€in€this€case.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€hold€that€the€emergency€demolitionÐ øH Ðordinance€was€a€zoning€ordinanceò ò€ó óthat€was€not€enacted€in€accordance€with€statutory€zoning€lawÐ ä4 Ðrequiring€planning,€notice,€and€public€hearings,€òòseeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„201ð!ð211,€or€theÐ Ô$ ÐTennessee€Historic€Zoning€Act,€òòseeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€13„7„401ð!ð410,€and€therefore€was€invalid.€Ð À ÐIn€addition,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€error€in€failing€to€join€indispensable€parties,€that€there€wasÐ ¬ü Ðno€error€in€granting€the€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings,€and€that€there€was€no€error€in€issuingÐ ˜è Ða€writ€of€mandamus.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€and€reinstate€the€trialÐ „Ô Ðcourtððs€judgment,€which€issued€a€writ€of€mandamus€requiring€the€issuance€of€a€demolition€permitÐ pÀ Ðto€the€appellant,€Cherokee€Country€Club,€Inc.€€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,€CityÐ \ ¬ Ðof€Knoxville,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð H!˜ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ø$H # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÐ ä%4!$ ÐÌ