December 12, 2024
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

11 Comments for 6-K-22-OA

Wayne (37901), June 3, 2022 at 9:56 AM

This was submitted to Amy Brooks on June 1, 2022. I understand Amy is out until next week. I request this be placed in the Commissioners notebook.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220603095654.pdf

June 3, 2022
at 9:56 AM

6-K-22-OA

Sandra
37914

Sandra (37914), June 5, 2022 at 5:05 PM

Please see attached PDF letter requesting that you recommend to Knox County Commissioners that we retain our existing Use on Review Appeal Process
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220605170523.pdf

June 5, 2022
at 5:05 PM

6-K-22-OA

Lisa
37924

Lisa (37924), June 6, 2022 at 9:17 AM

Please read the attached PDF with KCPA Position on proposed zoning amendment for appeals. KCPA believes this proposed amendment removes a local body with authority to modify decisions from the appeals process that denies community (AND applicants) review of important decisions made by Planning Commission.

To reduce the number of appeals filed (a desirable for all parties) we recommend that work resume on revising the Planned Residential ordinance, and also to update use regulations regarding treatment centers, which are urgently needed in our county.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220606091746.pdf

June 6, 2022
at 9:17 AM

6-K-22-OA

Lisa
37924

Lisa (37924), June 6, 2022 at 9:20 AM

In the last 14 years, the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals has heard sixteen Use on Review appeals. Of those cases, the BZA reached a final resolution for all but five.

Some elected officials and staff have claimed that there have been 19 appeals of Use on Review decisions; in that number they count two (2) that were withdrawn by the development applicant before hearing date, and one that was an appeal of a county building officials decision. BZA has heard a total of sixteen (16) appeals of Uses on Review since 2008.

Officials and staff have made statements that only one or two Use on Review appeals have been

overturned by BZA in the last 15 years. That is technically correct, but misleading. Since 2008, the BZA has affirmed the Planning Commission eight times (8, or 50%), modified or imposed restrictions five times, overruled twice (2), and ruled the applicant didn’t have standing once (1). This is the full picture supported by the agendas and minutes, and is a much different story than claiming the BZA has only overturned Planning Commission once or twice and is therefore slowing things down by a few months.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220606092030.pdf

June 6, 2022
at 9:20 AM

6-K-22-OA

Dawn
37920

Dawn (37920), June 6, 2022 at 1:21 PM

This is a terrible idea. This process already favors developers over citizens. Why are you adding an additional obstacle and financial burden to concerned communities……the last 11 months we have been attending these meetings not a single development has been REJECTED by the Plan Commissioners or Co Commissioners.

This will further advantage the developers and disadvantage citizens…….this process more fair, balanced and responsible growth.

The residents feel RUN OVER
I respectfully demand you vote NO

June 6, 2022
at 1:21 PM

6-K-22-OA

Tom
37920

Tom (37920), June 6, 2022 at 5:00 PM

You have two comments on file that specifically outline why this proposed amendment should be rejected. One of the comments is from an attorney who is referencing state law regarding boards of zoning appeals and County Commission's lack of authority to approve this proposed amendment, and the other from a certified planner who clearly understands the process. You can stop this foolishness and should stop this foolishness at your meeting. The mayor's suggestion to "streamline" the appeal process seems half-baked, but it's not. It's a deliberate political move to curry favor with developers by allowing them to circumvent the checks and balances of governance. The mayor's head may have slammed into a few turnbuckles in his day, but he's clever enough to assert the duck is not a duck. So are his proxies. It's shameful enough the trampling of zoning regulations over the past year in Knox County, but at least the BZA was a sounding board for regular citizens "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It seems that neither the mayor, nor developers nor planners nor county commissioners will be satisfied until Knox County's open fields and rolling forests are all razed and paved and covered with over-priced, cookie-cutter housing. You can at least preserve our right to appeal these wrong-minded decisions to the BZA. Do so.

June 6, 2022
at 5:00 PM

6-K-22-OA

Diane
37922

Diane (37922), June 6, 2022 at 6:28 PM

I am one of the leaders of the Northshore Corridor Association, a large citizen group that opposed an overzealous proposal (700 + homes and condominiums), that would have put a sewer plant in a PR zone.

Arguments for the Mayor's proposal are simply wrong. The proposal does not serve Knox County citizens of average means. Removing the right of appeal to a local citizen board favors affluent developers and grossly handicaps average citizens. It would not save time. It would, however, intimidate citizens and remove accessible due process. Please do not condone this unfair proposal.

The Mayor's supporters argue that court is as affordable as BZA, a preposterous claim.

The NCA case was heard by BZA, went to Circuit Court, then to Appeals Court - when the well-heeled Safe Harbor Development group did not accept the local judge's, nor even the appeals court's decision. The case was ultimately resolved in citizen favor when the TN Supreme Ct. declined the developers’ request to be heard. The case went on for more than four years, costing many, many thousands of dollars in legal and expert fees. NCA's legal fees, to the extent allowed by law, were assessed against Knox County, a co- defendant. It should also be noted that once court is the only option, negotiated, amicable compromise is off the table, and all parties have lost control of time and costs.

Strengthen the process, clarify the zoning ordinances, do not eliminate an important citizen right.

June 6, 2022
at 6:28 PM

6-K-22-OA

Joyce
37919

Joyce (37919), June 8, 2022 at 12:38 PM

This proposal takes the county in the opposite direction than it should be going. The county should be working to provide more opportunities for citizens to weigh in on the planning process rather than fewer. Forcing citizens to bypass BZA and go directly to Chancery Court will result in a decrease in citizens' participation given the increased costs and commitment in time. It's insulting to suggest citizens would take their case to court without hiring an attorney - especially knowing the developer will be well represented by council. This proposal will stack the deck against residents in favor of developers.

The county should model their appeal process of Use on Review decisions on that followed by the city. From the PC an appeal is taken to the city BZA, and then to City Council, offering two opportunities to resolve the disagreement satisfactorily before the case is taken to court.

Please do not change the current appeal process.

June 8, 2022
at 12:38 PM

6-K-22-OA

David
37914

David (37914), June 8, 2022 at 4:45 PM

The Board of Town Hall East urges you to retain our existing Use on Review Appeal Process.
1. Appealing through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) saves time and money. The BZA typically takes one or two months, Chancery Court takes twelve months or more. Less time equals less money spent.
2. BZA decisions are usually accepted by both parties: 69% of the BZA decisions were acceptable to both parties. (There have been sixteen cases since 2008, of which five continued to court and eleven did not.)
3. As a quasi-judicial body, the BZA hearing record carries a lot of weight, yet is flexible enough to find legal compromise. Chancery Court is more limited. BZA modified almost one-third of the sixteen appeals heard by BZA since 2008. Of these modified decisions only one was further appealed to court (the court upheld the BZA).
4. There are many types of Use on Review categories. There could be unintended and unforeseen consequences should the BZA appeal process be removed.

The existing Use on Review Appeal Process using the BZA works well. Removing the BZA and requiring all appeals go directly to Chancery Court slows and complicates the appeal process for all parties. Rather than "streamlining the appeal process," it will make it more formal, expensive, and time consuming.

June 8, 2022
at 4:45 PM

6-K-22-OA

Kate
37924

Kate (37924), June 9, 2022 at 9:55 AM

Nothing is broken here so why try to fix it ? People deserve the right to voice their opinions about ALL USE ON REVIEWS . No controversial uses on review should ever be granted a free pass without proper vetting BUY THE TAXPAYERS and all use on review appeals should be heard by the Knox County Commission. The Commissioners are elected by the people to protect our communities and safeguard our rights. Any change to this process just takes power away from the people. Again if it is not broken why try and fix it?

June 9, 2022
at 9:55 AM

6-K-22-OA

Kevin
37918

Kevin (37918), Submitted during the meeting

- comment goes here -
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220610160642.pdf

Submitted during the meeting