SNPCO, INC. v. City of Jefferson City
363 S.W.3d 467
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- SNPCO sold fireworks in Jefferson County outside Jefferson City's limits prior to annexation and claimed substantial income from such sales.
- In 2003 Jefferson City enacted an ordinance banning manufacture or sale of fireworks within the city.
- In 2008 Jefferson City annexed SNPCO's property, then refused to recognize SNPCO's request to continue as a pre-existing nonconforming use under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b).
- SNPCO sued seeking regulatory taking damages or, alternatively, relief under the grandfather provision of § 13-7-208(b)(1).
- Trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and dissolved the injunction; Court of Appeals affirmed, finding waiver of takings claim and that the ordinance was not a zoning restriction under the grandfather clause.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified the Cherokee Country Club substantial effect test, holding the test has two parts and must focus on both the ordinance terms and its relation to the general plan of zoning; the Jefferson City fireworks ban was not related to the general plan and thus not a zoning restriction or change, so the grandfather provision did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-7-208(b)(1) applies to SNPCO's claim | SNPCO contends annexation plus ban amounts to a zoning change. | City asserts ordinance is not a zoning change or restriction. | Not applicable; ordinance not a zoning change/restriction. |
| Whether Cherokee Country Club requires treating the fireworks ban as zoning | Affect on use should invoke grandfather protection if related to zoning. | Ordinance is a general police power measure, not zoning. | Two-part Cherokee test required; ordinance not closely related to zoning, so not zoning. |
| Whether the two-part 'substantial effect' Cherokee test governs this case | Cherokee test should determine grandfather applicability. | Cherokee test limits apply only if ordinance is zoning-related. | Applicable two-part test; here, ordinance not zoning-related, so no grandfather. |
| Did the annexation and city-wide ban create a 'zoning restriction' or 'zoning change' for purposes of § 13-7-208(b)(1) | Annexation and ban should be treated as zoning action. | Not a zoning action; falls under police power. | Not a zoning action; grandfather clause not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004) (adopted 'substantial effect' two-part test for zoning relation and impact)
- Lamar Adver. of Tenn., Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 905 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995) (burden on landowners to show applicability of grandfather clause)
- Custom Land Dev., Inc. v. Town of Coopertown, 168 S.W.3d 764 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004) (grandfather clause balancing local police power and vested uses)
- Lafferty v. City of Winchester, 46 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (ambiguous zoning restrictions construed against landowner in grandfather context)
- Smith Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hiwassee Village Mobile Home Park, LLC, 304 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn.2010) (explains grandfather concept and relation to general zoning plan)
- Coe v. City of Sevierville, 21 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (grandfather clause construction and application principles)