July 14, 2022
Planning Commission meeting

Public Comments

26 Comments for

X Date X ZIP Code

Jeremy
37931

6-G-22-UR
Jeremy (37931), June 6, 2022 at 4:47 PM

Hello, I was under the impression this was denied for 7du an acre, but now it looks like it has been approved. I am also trying to figure out why the planning board is letting the developer put 95 homes on 10.60 acres. This is 9 Du per acre, which is well above any development nearby. I would like someone to contact me and explain to me how this can be justified. You have my contact info above. I will post this on my neighborhood Facebook page to let everyone know what's happening. Have a great day!

June 6, 2022
at 4:47 PM

Alan
37931

6-SD-22-C
Alan (37931), June 7, 2022 at 10:14 AM

This property is surrounded on three sides by single family dwellings with a low to medium density. The plan for this property should not be approved unless it continues with this low to medium density single dwellings. What they are proposing (95 units) is far to many units for the 14 acres. The proposal that the developer is wanting approved is only good for them and not for any of the surroundings neighbors.

June 7, 2022
at 10:14 AM

Zelma
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Zelma (37931), June 21, 2022 at 1:37 PM

I oppose connecting the Hattie's Place Subdivision to Fitzgerald Road. I have lived on Boss Road, which Fitzgerald connects to my entire life. Both Boss and Fitzgerald are a one lane country road with not many places to pull over. We recently had speed bumps added to our roads to slow and deter traffic. The end of Fitzgerald is connected to Ball Road and Ball Camp Road where the railroad crosses. This is an extremely dangerous intersection where many traffic accidents happen. I hope the planning commission would take into consideration the lives of the people that already live on Boss and Fitzgerald. Adding a ton more traffic to an already dangerous situation is just a very poor planning decision and not taking any concern for the folks that already are taking that risk.

June 21, 2022
at 1:37 PM

Zelma
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Zelma (37931), June 21, 2022 at 3:05 PM

I wrote a comment previously on the proposal which I read incorrectly. If the plan is to make the area agricultural, I whole-heartedly approve of this request. I am sorry for any confusion.

June 21, 2022
at 3:05 PM

Ryan
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Ryan (37931), June 21, 2022 at 8:20 PM

If this property owner is indeed requesting agricultural, I fully support. Only if this is to allow for more natural grasses growing in the fields. Caring neighbor.

June 21, 2022
at 8:20 PM

Paul
37931

7-B-22-UR
Paul (37931), June 24, 2022 at 2:29 PM

We are very concerned about this development and want to ensure that no incursions from this development occur on our property. We want the developer/owner to put up a substantial fence between our properties to keep workers, contractors, future land owners and etc. from incursions onto our property in any manner. The present developer and land owner would pay for this fence and pay to maintain it for the foreseeable future.

If these conditions cannot be met we ask that this development be denied.

June 24, 2022
at 2:29 PM

Michael
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Michael (37931), June 30, 2022 at 5:29 PM

I vote against them making this lot agricultural. There have already been problems with rats from the last time the grass was high and then mowed down. Lawn maintenance is something we're all responsible to do and it isn't fun, but it keeps the property values where they should be in the local market. My understanding is they want to make it agricultural so they don't have to mow the property. Changing the lot to agricultural so the owners don't have to mow is not a good reason.

June 30, 2022
at 5:29 PM

Tina
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Tina (37931), June 30, 2022 at 7:47 PM

I am against this zoning change.

June 30, 2022
at 7:47 PM

Syconda
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Syconda (37931), July 1, 2022 at 1:22 AM

I own a house which shares a fence line with the property in question. The owners before them always kept the grass mowed and I never had issues with vermin. WHEN THEY MOVED IN THE CURRENT OWNERS PLANTED A SMALL BACKYARD GARDEN. They kept the grass mowed and burned some branches since much of the property is wooded. In the last few months they have done no yardwork. And I've had to used several rat traps In my garage to keep the mice down that are coming under the fence from the waist deep grass in their yard. It is a yard not a field. The grass and poison ivy is growing through the privacy fence that borders their yard on my side I know. This is not a rezoning to keep animals or raise large crops from any signs I can see. There is a small back yard garden but I believe the rezoning will cause a pest nuisance to the surrounding residents. For these reasons I am a gainst the rezoning.

July 1, 2022
at 1:22 AM

Wayne
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Wayne (37931), July 1, 2022 at 3:07 PM

I share a fence line with this property. I am against the rezoning of this property for reasons mentioned in other comments mainly the vermin concerns. As this property has recently changed owners it can do so in future. Without a detailed plan of what this is going to be used for and what crop will be planted in conjunction with future owners adhering to those specifics, I cannot agree. Depending on the crop, ie hemp, could introduce other undesirable elements to the equation.

July 1, 2022
at 3:07 PM

Sharie
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Sharie (37931), July 4, 2022 at 11:54 AM

I own a house which shares the fence line on the North (wooded) side of the property. The wooded portion of the property has not been maintained at all this year. The overgrown trees are hanging on and over the fence line, there are dead trees/branches that can and eventually will fall and damage fences and houses, holes are being dug under the fence by vermin's that are invading our property. I don't feel that an agricultural zoning for the 2216 Fitzgerald Rd. lot which is in the middle of a subdivision is fair to the people that purchased their property and maintain it. Therefor I am against the rezoning of 2216 Fitzgerald Rd.

July 4, 2022
at 11:54 AM

Jake
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Jake (37931), July 6, 2022 at 8:58 PM

Please see PDF attachment for our comments.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220706205851.pdf

July 6, 2022
at 8:58 PM

Jazmine
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Jazmine (37931), July 8, 2022 at 3:58 AM

I vote against making this yard an agricultural area. I agree that lawn maintenance is something we're all responsible for. It comes with the home ownership responsibility as well as keeps the property values more accurate. It is inappropriate to make a change to one yard for the sake of omitting a regular home owner duty, which will effect so many other home owners in the area.

July 8, 2022
at 3:58 AM

Chris
37931

7-O-22-RZ
Chris (37931), July 8, 2022 at 4:36 PM

That’s funny. Right down the road from Zion Rd. You know, the area you "dezoned" back to agricultural for the men’s boarding home. Guess the county can’t make up its mind on what like properties are!!!

July 8, 2022
at 4:36 PM

7-SB-22-C
Bob (37931), July 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM

Jenkins Road cannot handle the additional traffic that 22 planned lots would add. This should not be approved.

July 9, 2022
at 12:25 PM

Marj
37931

6-G-22-UR
Marj (37931), July 11, 2022 at 12:11 PM

In small print, the site plan states, "The area of Lot 1 will be used in calculating the total allowable density permitted for the development total." The 14.61 acre total is the size of the land purchase, not the land that will used for the development.

This 4.01 acreage (Parcel 1) is not part of and does not contain any portion of the actual building area and is being used solely to pad and justify building 95 homes on 10.60 acres.

Zoning regulations are meaningless if all a builder needs to do is buy additional land (that is either unbuildable or has no part of the building site) then add that extra land onto the application to justify a much higher density project.

The staff initially recommended denial to Medium Density Residential because it is not compatible with Low Density Residential, which surrounds the proposed plan on three sides.

This staff recommendation was denied because more housing is needed. Are zoning regulations meaningless as well?

July 11, 2022
at 12:11 PM

Susan
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Susan (37931), July 11, 2022 at 12:20 PM

My concerns with this property is that the owners won’t keep up with the mowing and upkeep. As of now they have not done so, the past owner kept it mowed. They allow the grasses to grow upwards of 6 feet, which draws rodents. Though I realize they have over 4 acres in the county they are surrounded by family homes. I fight the mice constantly. I don’t believe its safe for the children who live nearby. Thank you for your time. Susan and Tim Crosby. Concerned neighbors.

July 11, 2022
at 12:20 PM

Janson
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Janson (37931), July 11, 2022 at 8:10 PM

Due to the amount of adjoining properties that will be negatively impacted by the rezoning, I am against changing the property to agricultural. Lack of field upkeep and chickens as mentioned in other comments are already an issue I have had as well. Changing this property to an agricultural zone will significantly cause adverse effects to neighboring lots.

July 11, 2022
at 8:10 PM

Paul
37931

7-B-22-UR
Paul (37931), July 13, 2022 at 7:33 AM

Mistakes have been made by government offices, contractors and others related to this development project. None of these actions were done by any of our members. An old survey was used to set survey pins, see attached photos, on our property, desecrating our burial ground and damaging our property. We cannot tolerate any further incursions and damages. The owner and developer of 7912 Jenkins Rd., as well as all government agencies, must do everything they can to ensure that nothing like this happens again ever, including future property owners. A substantial fence must be installed along our shared property line and maintained by the developer and covenants added to all property deeds to make the property line very clear and forbid any incursions onto WKFM property.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20220713073311.pdf

July 13, 2022
at 7:33 AM

Tiffany
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Tiffany (37931), July 13, 2022 at 1:37 PM

I am against rezoning of this property to agricultural use. I live in the adjoining subdivision and the current homeowners of this property do not maintain the property around the subdivision. Homeowners in our subdivision are dealing with overgrown fields and rat infestations that are interfering with the enjoyment of their homes. What will happen if this is rezoned and the property owners have free reign to place animals in areas next to homes and are not required to maintain the property? The feces run off would be into the subdivision backyards and into the two retention ponds that are also adjacent to this property. Homes downwind would impacted. You cannot guarantee that this will not happen and what can be done about it once it is rezoned?

Have there been any studies as to how this will impact those retention ponds? Why weren't all residents of the subdivision notified? This is going to negatively impact the entire subdivision. This will negatively impact home values. I am certain you would have received more comments if you had notified the entire neighborhood. I am typically for Agricultural use but based on the neighborhood's history with this property owner we fear it will only create more headaches for our subdivision.

July 13, 2022
at 1:37 PM

Johnny
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Johnny (37931), July 13, 2022 at 1:38 PM

Against rezoning to agricultural for all the reasons stated in other comments.

July 13, 2022
at 1:38 PM

Rima
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Rima (37931), July 13, 2022 at 2:08 PM

I share a fence with this property. I'm against the rezoning of this property to agricultural. The lack of yard maintenance is already affecting us negatively. Last summer I had much trouble controlling vermin and rodents that caused so much damage to my yard. I believe the problem will get worse if the agricultural zoning is approved.

July 13, 2022
at 2:08 PM

Brandon
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Brandon (37931), July 13, 2022 at 2:21 PM

I’m opposed to the zoning change for this area. As a resident of Hattie’s place subdivision, this zoning change will negatively impact the adjacent homes and potentially other homes in the neighborhood.

July 13, 2022
at 2:21 PM

Angela
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Angela (37931), July 13, 2022 at 3:00 PM

Please do not rezone agricultural. It is important this grassy area remains well cared for including weekly mowing for the sake of all the families surrounding it.

July 13, 2022
at 3:00 PM

Nicole
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Nicole (37931), July 13, 2022 at 5:42 PM

I live in the neighborhood adjacent to this potential rezoning and am very much against this change. The property is not maintained as it is so I do not want to see what becomes of it if their classification changes. Furthermore, we bought our homes in the neighborhood because of the surrounding area. When looking into what could be allowed under the change, it would decrease our property values and potential desirability. Please do not approve this change.

July 13, 2022
at 5:42 PM

Kelly
37931

7-V-22-RZ
Kelly (37931), July 13, 2022 at 5:54 PM

I do not agree with making this an agricultural property. It is too close to homes and neighborhoods where families enjoy playing outside and taking walks. It will not be enjoyable to step outside of their homes to smell bad odors.

July 13, 2022
at 5:54 PM