Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the Blount County Planning Commission, and we're gonna be called to order shortly. But before we do that, we're going to have a emergency exit announcement. So if you please pay attention. Okay, ma'am. Madam secretary, do we have a quorum?

We do have a quorum. First item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the July 24 meeting. Do we have a motion on that?

They can hold.

Okay. Well, a motion by John Commissioner Giles, second by Commissioner Hannah. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, will you please vote? Motion passed.

We have no public hearings tonight. There's this is time for anybody in this audience that wants to comment on anything on the agenda. Now's the time to do that. If you have anything on the agenda you wanna talk about, please stand up and come forward. Seeing no one.

They'll be closed. Go on to site plans, mister, Butner. That's yours. Will you help us with that?

Yes, sir. Thank you. This first site plan is the for an expansion of a nonconforming use for American drywall supply at 5155 And 5157 US Highway 411 South. The site plan shows the addition of a 100 by 50 foot square foot storage building that's be added in the rear of the property. I've covered everything in my memo. I can take any questions that you have.

Do we have a motion to approve the conditions? Well, motion by commissioner Wright. Do we have a second? We have a second by commissioner Wells. Are there any questions or comments? Look like commissioner McClellan, you have a question.

Is there sufficient area for access to the rear of the building if necessary?

Access to the rear of this building?

I mean, you got 10 foot off of one proper line and 17 feet off the other.

They own they own the part behind it.

I know. But you if the access in, like, a semi to the back of it or something, I don't know what they're using it for.

But

The bay it's for storage. The bays will be on the front. It's just a garage.

I'm not worried about the axe I'm worried about to the rest of the property access if necessary. Oh, you're

talking about the 17 feet?

Well,

they they can't because the rear of it's all zoned r one. So may not I guess they could build a house back there, but they couldn't they can't extend the commercial development back there because all all the commercial development is confined to the the RAC area. So this is at the the very rear of that zone. And then behind that, the 15 acres behind it, Zone R 1. They just combined it so they could meet that 10 foot setback because that rear lot had a flag lot.

Okay.

Commissioner Giles?

Thank you, mister chairman. Mister Buckner, I I'm gonna have to ask for some clarification. I'm gonna show my ignorance here.

Okay.

Second sentence the second sentence of the background says that and I'm not gonna quote the entire sentence, but it says due to the greater parcel being a flag lot. I what is that? I I I couldn't find that anywhere.

Yeah. So the you'd probably explain it better, but a a flag lot is where you have a small narrow piece that connects to the right of way to provide access to the greater part in the back.

Okay. K. Alright.

So the the parcel in the rear wouldn't have access if it didn't have this little narrow flag I I gotcha. That touches the right of way.

I now know what you're referring to. Thank you. And, also, my my second question is I I think I've I've read where, you folks have recommended approval of this particular

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

Bruce, did you get your question answered? Is that something we need to explore farther? Can you help us with that, Thomas?

Yeah. I mean so in my opinion, they own that property as well, and it is a low density residential zone property. So if anything you know, they may develop it residentially. And if they did, it would be off of a, you know, potentially off of a yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So they're they're I mean, they're gonna be limited in whatever they'd be able to do back there. Certainly, not any commercial. But if anything, you know, a house, you know, a a a driveway, Private driveway would fit fine in there.

Are there any other questions? Seeing none, are we ready for a vote? Please vote. Motion passes. Cameron?

Yes, sir. This next item is a site plan for 3409 Tuckaliche Pike. It's for Ridgeview Baptist Church. Churches and religious uses are permitted by Rye, but they are subject to site plan approval if the if the development requires greater than three acres. Since this is a seven acre parcel, that's why the site plan's before the planning commission.

I can take what questions you have, but the the highway department's looked at the the driveway. Our environmental health department has, reviewed the the soil map for the, septic system. There wasn't any proposed lighting at this point. The parking's sufficient. And they've submitted all their paperwork to TDEC for their storm water coverage.

We have a motion by commissioner Giles to approve with conditions. Do we have a second? We have a second by commissioner Morris. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, if you will, please vote.

The motion passes. That brings us down to the preliminary and final plats on minor subdivisions. Mister Hancocks, can you help us with that?

Yeah. We're actually gonna start on item b one, preliminary plat major subdivision.

If we are, I can.

You're welcome. Okay. Number one is, Avadale Acres Subdivision, lots one through four off Tukalichi Trail Mhmm. By Preferred Homes. There's four lots along the county road. The outstanding items to be completed are on page three. All instructions in the staff analysis, including the developer notice. And number two, the preliminary plat fee. Before you take a boat, I just wanna explain why this is a preliminary only for four road frontage lots. They need to cut the bank and take down some vegetation and establish a ditch line for the highway department.

So they'll do that. There's maybe some utility issues as well. We'll have to find out, and then we'll evaluate site distance. Once everything's approved by the highway department, we'll bring it back to you for final plan.

Do we have a motion? We do have commissioner, commissioner Wales, second by commissioner Giles. Now do we have any questions? Seeing none. If you will, please vote.

Motion passes. Doug?

Thank you, mister chairman. Next item is item c one. It's a final plat for Gregory property lots one through seventeen off Gregory Road, by Murphy Gregory. There's 16 lots to be served off the existing county road, with a common area potential lot. The outstanding items to be completed are on page three.

The first is all on-site erosion controls shall be managed and remain in place until the site is revegetated. Number two, the developer shall supply final notarized documentation for property owners association for Gregory Gregory Properties Subdivision Lots 1 Through 17. Number three, completion of all on-site items, including final inspection by the highway department. Number four, signature plants, including electric water and environmental health department. And number five is the environmental health department review fee and the planning fee. And that's it.

Do we have a motion to approve the condition? We do by commissioner Wright. Do we have a second? Second by commissioner Franklin. Commissioner McClellan, you have a question?

I don't remember this from a preliminary, but I see something that concerns me now with the health department. These are all 75 foot lots, basically. And a septic field, if I'm not mistaken, has to be a minimum of 10 feet off the property line, which only leaves 55 feet for multiple field or lines of of, septic. So this concerns me that with the narrow narrowness of the lots.

You want a response to that? Sure. Okay. So we did have quite a bit of discussion about the lot width on these at the preliminary plat stage. The subdivision regulations do allow for it. We did have a conversation about, you know, tree cutting and side by side and putting the houses on it. Our understanding is they're wide enough for houses and to meet the side set backs. And I did spend time with, mister Wilson discussing the narrowness of the lots, and he was okay with it.

If I remember, there was quite a bit of conversation about the unpulmonary plant.

There was. Yeah.

Any other comment or questions? Seeing none. If you will, please vote. Motion passes. Know you're still up, Doug.

I'm on item e one, supplementary and final plat. This was a replat for Lots 92 R And 87 R Of Wildwood Springs off French Street by Bradley and Amy Gunn or Gwen. Sorry if I pronounced it wrong. Four lots off the County Road. Outstanding items to be completed are number one, signature plats with all certifications, including the environmental health department, electric, water. Number two, environmental health department review fee and the planning fee. And that's all I have, mister chairman.

Do we have a motion to approve conditions? Motion by commissioner Bright. Do we have a second? Second by commissioner Wells. Are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none, please vote. Motion passes. Doug?

Yes. Next item is miscellaneous item one. It's Lot 15 R, Top Of The World, Section 5 off Bear Road and Flats Road by Morgan Dragon. There's a variance request to lot size. Outstanding items to be completed are the consideration of the variance to minimum lot size by the Planning Commission.

And number two are the signature plats with all required certifications, environmental health department review fee, plotting fee, and the variance request fee. If you'll notice, I believe the combined lots say 1.2 acres. They're both existing lots of record. The reason this comes to the planning commission because this is actually an r two zone, and the minimum lot size is five acres. But you have granted similar variances in the past. I think you did one just a little over a year ago that was, very similar to this. And I have discussed this with Mr. Wilson, and he was satisfied that this is an improvement to the existing situation. So that's all I have.

Do we have a motion to approve the conditions? We have a motion by commissioner Mars. Do we have a second? We have second for commissioner Hodge. Now are there any questions or comments? Commissioner Jobs.

Thank you, mister chairman. If I understand this correct, they're gonna combine two lots, and the sum of both those lots will be one two 1.2 acres?

That's my understanding. Yes.

K. But the current lot size minimum lot size is five acres?

Correct. But there are currently two each one of these lots is point six acres now, and there are lots of record. They exist. The zoning was drawn or implemented in this area after these lots were established. So they were already there. They're of long standing.

Are they are they grandfathered in, sir? I guess I'm I'm still having a hard time understanding that. Are they grandfathered in? You're not

Yeah. So the if they don't do anything, they're grandfathered in, and they can use them as is. They're just simply combining two. The reason it comes to the planning commission is because it doesn't meet a minimum standard, and staff can't staff approve it. If we could, it wouldn't have come to the planning commission. Simply by virtue of the fact that these lots are in the r two zone.

Mhmm.

And the zoning says the minimum lot size is five acres. Staff can't. Staff approve it. We have to bring it to you.

I got you. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

If you kinda take in consideration all those lots up there are very small, you're you're taking a bad situation and just making it better. Mhmm. You're right. It's not conforming to the current zoning as we have, but it's improving in that area. Okay. Normally, we would not probably consider, that variance.

Thank you for that explanation, sir. My question is, are we setting a precedent if we if we do that? No.

In that area.

In that area, we've done Well, you're Well,

we we are, but we're improve like you said, we're improving the situation. So it it's it's a good thing.

The zoning regulations actually encourage this.

Okay. I would I would say we have we have set the precedent for the top of the world community. Yes. We have done this. Okay. It's probably not been that easy in a normal, zone. Is that fair to say, Doug?

Yeah. I think what you said was spot on. Okay.

I I wish I'd I wish I'd have been more well versed in this, and I appreciate the explanation. I'm gonna have a hard time supporting it just in my gut for some reason or another. And I will own that because I've not done any I'll I'll do some more research into this. We'll see what happens, but but, I have a hard time supporting doing that. I understand we are making a bad situation better.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

If I might, before you take a vote, you know, there's currently two lots there, and they're both grandfathered. They could put two homes on one home on each one of those. By combining these, they can't put two homes on it. They're only gonna be putting one. So it's actually a better use of the property, and they're increasing a substandard lot.

They're making it bigger, but they don't they don't own all the land to make it five acres. And and this you're not setting a precedent. Like I said, first off, the zoning encourages it. And second off, you know, we have a lot of old campgrounds and old old plats that have very substandard lots, and they come they come to the planning commission as long as I've been here, you know, routinely. And the planning commission as long as the environmental health department's okay with it, you know, the planning commission has granted all the variances, like, as far as I know Okay. Just for combination of lots. No. I'm not talk I mean, that I'm only talking about in this particular circumstance where you're taking small lots, simply making them bigger.

So let me tell you what I think I heard you say because that might have an impact on how I vote in this. They are grandfathered in where they could put two residences and two septic systems on the in on the two individual lots a day, and that's due to grant due to being grandfathered in the old laws.

Yeah. There are two lots of record. If the if if they passed muster individually, they could have two separate houses.

By And they combine the two and have one.

Yeah. Because what's the minimum lot size for two houses in the R 2? Okay. So it's one. Yeah. So they they're going to walk they would they're actually possibly taking, you know, some of the Okay. Does that make sense?

It does. I appreciate that explanation. That that's helpful very much. Thank you, sir.

Mhmm. You're welcome.

Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, will you please vote? Motion passed. Doug?

Okay. This is miscellaneous item two. It's the resubmission of the Caruba properties off Mustang Drive, and there's a variance request to the right of way. I I I'll read the outstanding items to be completed, which is one is the consideration of the variance by the planning commission. And number two would be signature plats with all required certifications, environmental health department review fee, platting fee, and the variance request fee. But I think if we simply just look at the plat, it'll make the most sense. And I believe some of this has been platted before, maybe some hasn't. But you can see by, you know, what they're doing. They're they're connecting some lots of across the road. We don't do that very often.

But that's not the purpose of the variance request. The purpose of variance request is the the structures that are going out into the right of way that they are dedicating by submitting this plat, and they're doing it on both sides of the road. And so we've actually had, the highway superintendent and and the county engineer go out and actually look at it, and they thought the best thing to do was, leave leave the structures where they're at. They're giving quite a bit of right of way that wasn't there before, and they didn't feel at this time this was any sort of problem for them. So they recommended for the VariX, and that's it.

Okay. We have a motion to approve the conditions by commissioner McClellan. We have a second by commissioner Giles. Now is there any questions or comments?

How how wide is the right of way?

Do you know the I can't see it on here.

Well, the widest part, you know, where it goes all the way across, it's 50 feet. Okay. It's pretty substantial.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. If you will, please vote. Motion passes. Long range planning, staff reports. I guess that takes us into Tom, you wanna hold the next item?

Yes, sir. Thank you. So in front of you denied, we have this was actually sent back to the planning commission. So not only y'all, but also Alcoa. This was the the county commission.

Remember early I guess it was late spring, early summer. Commissioner Wells sort of spearheaded the the this discussion on perhaps changing the reducing the minimum open space requirement in any cluster divisions, cluster developments we might get in the future. And, you know, to go even further back a couple years ago, we adopted some pretty extensive cluster development regulations. And to date, no one has has yet applied to do one of those. So when it came out of this body, again, at the at the last meeting, the recommendation from here was to reduce across the board from 40% required open space to 30%.

Then the county commission held their public hearing. They took comments. They had you know, they deliberated it and actually came up with, I guess, a a compromise recommendation to let me make sure I'm getting this right. Change the open space required open space percentage to 35% in the suburbanizing district and leave it at 40% in the R 1 and R 2 districts. So, essentially, the only effective reduction here would be from 40 to 35 in suburbanizing.

They didn't vote on it at that time. And like I said, the the county commission decided to remand that back to the planning commissions for further discussion and recommendation if appropriate. And that that would be your all's role at this point would be, you know, to to make a recommendation one way or another to the county commission. I believe they want to hold another public hearing on it, so we'll do that in due time. It has been forwarded to Alcoa. I just found out today they're gonna have it on their agenda on their September 18 meeting. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I've been and again, I don't wanna put him under Spotlight, but mister Wells is probably more familiar with this than anybody now at this point. So, again, I'm happy to answer anything I can.

Commissioner Wells?

Thanks, mister chairman. Yeah. I'm pretty familiar with with it at this point. There's been a lot of discussion. I was a little bit surprised what you just said that it's already been sent to Alcoa Planning Regional planning.

Only in that, I guess, the process that I I wanna understand is how this how this goes at this point. I know the the county commission, we had a lot of discussion on this particular topic over the over the course of two sessions. And I I think where we where we ended up at, you referred to it as a compromise, I think it was a whatever whatever characterization we might give it. I'm not sure it's particularly something everybody who's in a a wholesale agreement is the thing that everybody wants. I think it would be something that that might get approved, but I think that is not necessarily the objective of the process.

So I wanted to to understand, you know, that if it's coming back to this body and this body originated it the first time and then whatever we'd whatever we agreed upon here, then it went to the Alcoa and Regional Planning Commission at that stage, and then they said yes, and then it went to county commission. Is there a reason it's not following the same steps this particular time that's come back to us and then to them? And then is it is it why has it already gone to them? I guess what I ask.

It I've I've simply forwarded it to them for consideration on a future agenda, the same way we did here. Your your meeting just happens to be before theirs. So their recommendation is independent of your recommendation. Both recommendations go to the county commission. County commission can choose to act on the recommendation or do something outside of that. The the statute just says that the county commission must receive a recommendation from the regional planning commissions.

Sure.

And that that's how we did it before. They they actually run parallel until they until both both planning commissions have made their recommendation.

And then I understand.

Once those are done, then it goes on to the county.

But they didn't have anything to consider at the Alcoa Regional Planning Commission until we originated it was my point. We originated it. We had the discussion here. We said, hey. We would like to propose 30%. And then because we developed that, then it went to Alcoa Regional Planning Commission. Right? Yes. And is it this case because the county commission has said, hey. This is what we're proposing. Now it's just sent to both?

I I just thought that was most appropriate since the the county commission's vote said back to the planning commission. So I sent it to both planning commissions.

Yep. So okay. I I just I feel like it

It's a it's a little different, I mean, for it to go up and then back. There's probably half a dozen different ways to do it.

But

To me, I I think what I feel like is that it it by the by county commission not approving the the what was it what was sent. It was basically a start over. It's how I feel. I mean, it's it's does it come back to us for to say, you know, we didn't agree with what you sent us, so we're kicking it back to you all for consideration. And so at this point in time, it's not necessarily that I feel like we're approving anything.

It would be saying we're reconsidering what has been sent back to us. Is that accurate to say? So that's that's what they've asked us to do is to take it up again, reconsider it, and consider there as a body, thoughts, suggestion, amendment, if you will, to a new percentage. And I don't think I'm misstating the way that that is is come back to us. Right? It's we're not necessarily saying yes or no to 35 or 40%. We're saying that is their thought on what they amended it to be as a as a recommendation, but we're taking it they've asked us to take it back up for discussion.

I'll I'll just read what the minutes from the county commission say. The the final so there was actually there was an amendment. The amendment would that finally was voted on was the 35% project area and suburbanizing down and 40 in the R 1 and r 2 zones. And then the last vote, the chairman asked unanimous consent to amend the original motion motion to adopt to be a motion to forward the amended resolution to the Blount County, Alcoa, and Maryville Regional Planning Boards for review and approval. There was no objection.

The electronic vote was taken. The motion to forward the resolution as amended to the planning bodies was approved by the following vote. Now we didn't send it to Mount Merrillville because they're not a regional planning board anymore. So they actually wouldn't have any jurisdiction over this, but we just simply forwarded this to y'all and to them. So And and, I mean, for what it's worth, I I will say that as long as I've been here at least, Alcoa has never made substantive changes in any way to anything that we've drafted and sent to them.

They may have have commented on it or added, you know, a little bit of of of explanation to their thought process and suggested that we do this or that, but they've never they've never taken it on themselves to amend

Mhmm.

Our proposed amendments. Now it's not to say that they couldn't, but it it hasn't happened to date.

Thank you. The the the thought I have here is we don't in this particular case, on these particular items, we don't approve anything.

Correct.

We we we make a recommendation, and it comes from us. If if if eight of us like it and five of us don't or whatever our numbers are, then then it comes still with that unfavorable recommendation or or a favorable recommendation. It doesn't come as an approval. So it's an interesting language that the county commission even has in it that says we're asking to approve anything because we're not approving it anyway. We can take it up and and reconsider it.

My thoughts on it at this point are it's not as significant enough of a change for the purposes that we would wanna change. So so we don't change for change sake, I guess, is what I'm getting at. I I would love to see the the purpose of wanting to have the the change made either adopted or not adopted. And I I get that we're not all in agreement with what that should be. But in terms of I mean, rather than me saying here, hey.

I'm gonna make an amendment to something different. I feel like there needs to be further thought process and discussion maybe on now that I understand kinda how this goes. It's really back in our court to take it back up, what we really ought to consider doing, what's the really the the the the appetite for having open space considered in these particular areas. I mean, to the point where I would say, I'd rather postpone this for a month and and look at it more rather than vote on what county commission sent us.

I don't And I don't know that you have a you know, you don't have to drop dead date to do it today. We just Yeah. We put it on this agenda because it was the next agenda.

Understand. I'm just speaking to my, you know, colleagues here. That's just kinda how I'm thinking about at this point. Because what I don't know if there shouldn't be some additional ways to tackle this. I'm not saying it just it's it's not just about the open space maybe.

Maybe there's more you wanna address with cluster developments because I think at the end of the day, the whole program is under scrutiny at the moment to say, is it a usable program? And I'm I'm questioning at this point in time if it's really a usable program if nobody's gonna use it. And a 5% probably ain't gonna change to that. So at that point in time, what needs to change even besides the open space that makes this work in general? So I'd love to have that either in workshop discussion with with everybody here or in some form of, dialogues that we can reach something that makes more sense.

So that's my comments. I I I mean, I won't make a motion yet because I'm the first one to speak. I don't wanna jump right in on that, but that's my thoughts, would be to probably delay this.

So are you you said you didn't make a motion. You're not wanting to make a motion to move it to next meeting?

I do, but I see, like, mister Myers maybe wanna speak, so I want his I don't wanna monopolize that. So

Okay. Commissioner Giles and then commissioner Mark, are you still wanting to say something to Are you Commissioner Giles, you No. I'm sorry. Yeah. K.

Thank you, mister chairman. And I appreciate commissioner, Wells' comments because we did we had several long sessions around this particular item, and I spent a spent a considerable amount of time in in research into looking into this. The reason reason that I did that is I heard commissioner Wells loud and clear saying we were proposing going from 40% to 30%. Because of the 40%, we haven't had anybody really interested in in pursuing the information or doing anything in Blount County. So what I did is I checked a plethora of counties throughout Tennessee from the richest to the least richest and see what their open requirement spaces were for r one, r two, and suburbanizing.

And what I found overall, which I won't get into now, but I came up with a compromise between 4030%. I recommended this this percentage at the county commission because there's a no less than eight counties surrounding us here in Blount County that are at the 35% range. My thought process was, well, they're growing at that per 35%. Why couldn't we grow at that same 35% while still protecting the homeowners and protecting Blount County as a as a, community? So I agree with commissioner Wells.

I think to have a small focus group sit down or to have a special session to talk about this because Blount County commission, from my understanding, is waiting for a recommendation from this group couple or supported by the Alcoa planning regional regional planning commission. And if we don't do anything, it's gonna stay where it's at. And if we're okay with that, that's fine. But I think we need to spend a little bit more time and energy to come up with a come up with a recommendation for the county commission. And then just, once again, as commissioner Wells, let them make that decision because that's where that decision lies.

That power lies within the county commission. So I would concur. Let's let's do something, make that decision, but just to let it sit. And I appreciate you bringing up as quickly as you have, sir, so that we can get some sort of resolution around this. Because if this is indeed whether or not I believe it is a different issue.

But if this is indeed a an issue for some of the folks to not build and not expand in Blount County, I think as I mentioned, the county commission, we're either growing or we're dying. We're not staying the same. So and nobody we're not gonna stay the same, and I certainly don't want Blunt County to die. We are in a pretty good situation right now. So my recommendation would be, mister chair, is that we put either put together a small focus group to decide and come back with a recommendation of this group, or we have it set aside a small meeting to further discuss this and come up with a different recommendation if there is a different recommendation than the current 30. Is that clear?

Yeah. I think so.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Hodge.

I wanna just kinda clarify. This is a minimum of 10 acres to do a cluster development. Correct?

Yes.

So if your goal is to encourage cluster development, if that's the goal, is that is that the goal or no?

It is the goal is to have a program that's a usable program as a cluster development. Okay. Yeah. As opposed to one

of thinking out thinking out loud, and this may may be, you know, needs to be happening in a workshop. But if the goal is to encourage cluster development, we all need to be aware of that. And then the first thing to do is then we're talking about open space ultimately. Correct?

That's right.

And we we have the ultimate they have the open spaces broken down into primary and secondary. Correct, Thomas? The weight of the primary open space is what I would call usable, and the weight of the secondary is what I we've always talked about is unusable, your detention ponds and whatnot. So but I go back to if our goal is to encourage cluster development, are we are we thinking from the right angle? Because if you go to if you take a 10 acre piece of property, if I'm my math is correct, and you move it to 35%, which is what was on here, that equates to one half of an an acre in addition to what's or less than what's required now.

Correct? So my question is, at 35%, is that enough to encourage someone to do wanna do cluster development in Blount County, Tennessee? I personally don't know. Have you had anybody come into your office and said, I've got this idea that I'd like to do. And if I had another half acre that I didn't have to fill with open space, would it work? That's the answer or the question that we they're facing with right now. Or they say, need 30%, which would be one acre, correct Mhmm. Of of less open space. Is that the number that it takes? Is it more than that?

Do we further reduce the open space requirements? Where is the number that a developer needs to be to make it work? If it's 20%, then we need to ask ourself, is that a figure that we would be comfortable with? Right? I think we're looking at it from a different angle.

Mhmm.

We're we're saying 30%, 35, currently 40. Maybe it needs to be 20, and maybe we say, hey. We're just just forget about it. We're not gonna do that, or we say, okay. We are comfortable with that. That's how how I look at it. You've heard me mention o usable open space the whole time I've been up here. And but I just like to know what what what what's it take. Have you had a had a developer come in and say, I wanna do this, but in order to work, I need to have this minimum of open space to make my project?

No one the the the people that we have met with, several different pieces of property, several different conceptual things, they were on a fact finding, you know, operation. They got the information they needed. They said we're gonna go work on it, and we've never heard back from any of What? So no. I mean, I but does that mean that it doesn't work? Or, you know, I don't know. We we don't know what happens after Yeah. After they leave. But just not to get too far in the weeds because I I think maybe a a ad hoc or something may be most appropriate to really dig down into it. But

I I think that's important. What we need what is it we need to do if that's what we're trying to do is encourage this. Right? We may not wanna go that to that extent and just say this is the way Yep. We feel.

You know, Doug Doug and I have discussed this for years now, really, off and on because this is, you know, this is kinda planning school, first class, first year, you know, kind of thought processes. And I've always kinda been of the impression that if you have let's say you've got a 40 acre farm, there's not a tree on it, it's as flat as a tabletop, you're not gonna do a cluster development. It doesn't make any sense. All that land is usable. Put square lots on it and call it a day.

It's easy. You know? I think I've always kinda thought they cluster developments, and and, again, maybe that was just cause that's what a professor beat into my head, but that they were really beneficial when you have a challenging piece of property. You know, you've you've got a piece of property with steep topography maybe on one part of it. You know, ideally, we wouldn't want people developing on steep topography. It's more expensive. It's more difficult for them to build on it. So it's a give and a take. We get to set aside, you know, this part that would be challenging to do to do. And then in response to that, they get to do smaller lots.

So the net effect is they have the same number of lots that they would had otherwise, but they're kinda grouping them in one area. So maybe it's that the property that's available right now is more conducive to a standard subdivision. You know, I I don't know. I don't know what those factors are in the background, but that's just my 2¢.

But we may not establish that school of thought as departed, like you said, the purpose. And that's my point earlier exactly what commissioner Hodges say. It's this this is worth revisiting for the purpose of saying what should it maybe look at all the variables that are here and address what's gonna move the needle. I know the ones that I have spoken with, multiple developers, just to try to get more input like mister Giles is saying, trying to get a feel for the market and what the look. And the number I got back was 20 to 25%. You know? But I said, could you do it at 30? Well, we might give it a shot. You know? I'm real sure.

You know? So I don't I don't think the developer even knows for sure if it's gonna work or not work, you know, at those particular percentages. But I I don't wanna just ask a developer either. You know? And so it it's a it's a matter of getting all the input. So at this point, I think it's worthy of we call it you mentioned it a ad hoc or whatever. I think all the planning commissioners ought to, if they want to be on it, be on it. And if if they so choose to participate in it, if you've said, I don't I'm not my bag of tricks, I'll do something else. That's fine. But I think everybody ought to have the opportunity just to to set in on that and workshop it out and see if it's worth digging into that.

That go back to the thing. We're we're kinda deciding on 30% or 35%, but that's not if that if that's not gonna make anything happen, Just need to forget about

it. Exactly.

I mean, find out what the number is. What is the number?

Yeah.

I mean, Doug, you've been around as long as I have. I'd like to ask your opinion on that. Do you think that our current regulations now are dis dissuading or or Too rigid. Deterring cluster development?

Maybe. You know, I think if you if I can take a minute. So I've been here twenty eight, twenty nine years, and we've done cluster developments, open space developments in the past. And, you know, by and large, they were what your idea of this cluster subdivision is or was supposed to be. And then I guess around the time of, you know, 02/1819 during COVID, we had several clustered our cluster subdivision regulations up to that time, they evolved.

They went from requiring a certain amount of open space to dropping the requirement to going to commensurate open space. And then about 02/1920, when the housing prices and the land value in Blount County started to skyrocket, some of the developers who took advantage of the cluster development weren't necessarily cluster development developers. And there was two or three big ones, and they came in and they did some cluster developments, taking advantage of our generous commensurate open space and did cluster developments that had very limited open space and put a really bad taste in the mouth of everybody. So the response by the county commission, planning commission, etcetera, was to increase lot sizes and then retroactively come back with what you're doing now. I mean, what you recently did with cluster development standards, which logically all makes a lot of sense.

From a planning education standpoint, you know, one of the thing and, I mean, I've I studied land development, you know, in college, and I met some of the people that wrote the original books about cluster development. Cluster development is kinda like the Cadillac subdivision. You know? And, typically, in the past, we had you know, you have people that want Cadillacs and people that don't. You know this, Tom.

However, you know, that was kind of the the high standard. You know? As a planner, we aspire to have all of our subdivisions at some point be recognized as you know, the value of the land was so so much even if it was less than, you know, par land, which I understand what Thomas is saying. If you have land that is substandard, you can cluster and still take advantage of the land. I don't necessarily agree with what he said about the 40 I mean, I mean, that happens.

You know, you take a 40 acre farm, and it's easy to go wall to wall with a subdivision. But there's opportunities to do cluster development there too. So if you want a higher standard of subdivision from a planning standpoint, you probably want the cluster subdivision. That was one of your questions, Tom. Is that the goal, and is it or not?

So it doesn't have to be the goal, but it can be but if you're gonna have one, I agree. You know, it needs to make sense from a practical standpoint for everybody. Has to work for the community, and it's gotta work for the developer. So I think that if you put a standard out there for a cluster subdivision that encourages the cluster subdivision developer to come in here and use it, then it'll be a really good tool. Otherwise, you're just blocking people from using this tool that could be a real advantage to any piece of property in the county other than just the standard subdivision.

Otherwise, that's all you're gonna get. So I don't know what the number is. I think 40 is way too high. I think 35 is way too high. I think you're closer to 20%. And, I mean, I don't know what the other locations are doing. I mean, I don't know why we would study necessarily what everybody else is doing. We need to do for Blount County what's best for Blount County. You know, we have some really good subdivisions that take up all the I mean, you know, Franklin Manor is outstanding, but we don't see a lot of those kind of subdivisions. You know, there's been a lot of care that went into that particular subdivision.

If any of you haven't seen it, it's not a cluster subdivision. They have a couple lots that they all own, but those are basically for detention. But it's an outstanding subdivision. But most of them are just okay. And, I mean, you've seen them. You know what they're like. We used to build really nice subdivisions, big lot subdivisions. You have big lot subdivisions, one and two and three acre lots, then you don't necessarily need open space. But, you know, if we're gonna go take a 40 acre farm in Blount County and someone's not gonna do a cluster development because they're not encouraged to, then they're gonna do a minimum lot size subdivision of three quarters of acre, and they're gonna try to maximize and get as many lots as possible. I guess you gotta decide the quality of the subdivision you want.

And if you actually want the higher standard if you wanna encourage developers to build cluster subdivisions, you gotta give them an incentive to do it. I hope that's helpful.

Commissioner Sullins, you you yes.

The question about the is there enough density of these irregular lots to to entice a developer's appetite in these suburbanizing and r one, r two districts? Or is there enough standard developments? What does that density look like in our county and based on these districts? Or is there enough standard developments at the at the available at the current growth rate the developers aren't engaging because they don't need to engage right now. And by moving these numbers, any any way more back I don't know.

It's just an open discussion. I think an ad hoc's a good idea. But are we setting a precedent for a future that we don't know yet?

And yeah.

Yeah. I mean but, you know, a future that you know, hey. And all of a sudden, these you know, they use up all the available, and we've shrunk these numbers down, and it's a free for all for the few irregular lots that we have. And we give away that equity in the future.

I think it'd be hard to do a closer development on 10 acres.

I I do too.

I mean,

I think they're just not gonna do it. You can leave the number there. I don't think that matters.

I said this before that, you know, bringing this up to begin with, you know, I almost feel bad about ever having brought up the idea in general. Just just from the origin from the original proposal only because and I feel like maybe I did the county in general disservice, but but, to some degree because what but I felt like what we had on the books was too loose.

What can I can I say something? Don't mean to interrupt you, but, I mean, I think we're getting folk we're stuck on a number. I mean I think when you redid the cluster development, you it was a comprehensive look at everything.

Right.

And there's a lot of really good stuff you put in there, and you broke it down to usable and not usable. And I think Tom makes a really good point. Maybe we should just focus on usable open space, and then everything else you you know, if if you consider unusable and it's a it's a detention basin, then it's it's usable open space plus that, you know, or maybe a buffer plus usable space and maybe give some options. But all the other things that you did in there are good. They're really good. You know, we're just stuck on one number.

Good. I

appreciate that. I I think the the, I think the the approach is what we're we're needing to get to to make a good recommendation goes beyond numbers. And it and to make it that's my whole point is to go to kick it back to to somebody for an approval. I I think we totally need to revisit either that theory or the how is it the minimum acres? Is it the open space requirement?

Is it the, you know, the buffers? Is it is it whatever is we've got in this thing that that is that we put out to begin with that's not been usable? So, I mean, mister chairman, I mean, I I'll I'll make it, you know, motion, I guess, at the moment that we that we postpone it for this decision, but we form a or have a workshop session on this subject to to try to address and come up with a a design or recommendations. It may take more than one, I don't know, to to come up with a a next best proposal for what we might say a cluster development might be best look like. And I think at that point in time, I'd be a lot more comfortable even if we do propose it and if we pass it and the regional planning commission passes it, is to have our development department come and explain it to the county commission so they can understand why it was proposed the way it was proposed as opposed to just the numbers.

Think that would be make more sense to me, but that's that's a little further down the road once we get to that point.

Yeah. You brought the issue right there that that I'm sitting here thinking about. Irregardless of of what we come up with, if the commission isn't on board, we have wasted a whole lot of time. I mean, I I haven't and, you know, if they're on the commission, you can tell me, but I haven't seen a whole lot of interest in changing much of anything, quite frankly. I mean, tell me if I'm wrong.

Well, I only say you're wrong. And because if I hadn't hadn't proposed this and we hadn't adopted the first time, we'd be right back where we were, which was just all you gotta have is open space. You apply for it. You get half per you get 50% lot reduction size, and you gotta have some open space. That's kind of simplification, but that's pretty close

to where we were.

So so, I mean, they

basically to look at the whole Yeah.

I mean, that's where we were before that. And so the the commission was sitting and and dealing with lot sizes at that point in time trying to control growth through lot sizes when the real pushback was from the design of some of these cluster developments that had that you mentioned that recently had been developed that weren't as thoughtful. They weren't

they weren't cluster development and subdividers, and they were using our regulations to do cluster development. And I think you've made your point. And by the you know, you change the lot sizes, and I think you went too far in the cluster development, so it's not as usable. I read something thirty five years ago about clustered not cluster developments, about golf course developments that, like, 90% of the people that live in them don't golf. They live there because there's open space, and they have a choice, and they just wanna see green space.

You know, you could have open space or cluster development subdivisions, you know, that have shared farming activities or pasture land or rent it out to farmers or, you know, have a racetrack. I mean, there's a lot of different things that you could do with cluster developments to get you know, and even closer into town when you have cluster developments, you know, you have other amenities. Some people don't wanna drive everywhere. Maybe they wanna, you know, walk somewhere. Maybe they wanna have be closer to their neighbors.

You know, there's a lot of reasons for cluster developments. And if you take the incentive away just because it's too expensive and I think you've run off the ones that you didn't want here. I think you made your point with with the lot sizes and the densities. So if you want this to work, you know, put something out there that's gonna encourage someone to use it. Otherwise, you're gonna have the same kind of subdivisions. You know, we had some. You know, they were we they were going. We're actually putting sanitary sewer out in the county in these subdivisions. You know, that was a big investment. You know?

But if the land cost was too high, you know, you're they would have never done that. And, you know, if the if the offset, how much if they had to put 40% of the land into open space, now when a developer has to because it's on the side of a mountain or something, then that that's nice too. But I think we're we're going in the wrong direction. You know? If you want cluster development, I think, you know, give them an incentive to do it.

Commissioner Giles, did you have something else?

Yes, sir. I said initially, I didn't wanna problem solve this, but I guess we are. So I I just wanna summarize what I had said earlier. I I I've listened to a lot of very healthy discussion here. As I said, I got a lot of data.

The poorest county in Tennessee, and I won't mention its name, in this particular area is at 20%. So when we talk about open space requirements, the poorest county in Tennessee is at 20%. The two richest counties with both start with a w, one is at 30%, and the other one is at 35%. If you look at the counties that surround us, Monroe County, Sevier County, Knox County, Loudoun County, Farragut, they're all at 35% open space requirements. My logic behind saying 35% was to compromise from the 40 I'm not saying 30 is not the right answer, but I'm saying if all these different counties look at this and say, 35% seems like a adequate number to, once again, to provide open space for our and that's where I think we started this discussion.

How do we keep Blount County Blount County? We didn't have to we weren't worried about bringing more cluster developments, and we were more more I think, initially, my my recollection, it was more about preserving what we have. Started 40%, and commissioner Wells said that he's talked to a few folks and and rightfully so. So that's we're not we're not gonna do that. That's too much.

So that's why I said 30 that's why I proposed 35% because it seems to be a very adequate number for the folks around us. Now this date is almost a month old, so they they might have made some changes since then. But there is interest, I think, from the county commission's perspective to to get this resolved, chairman Tipton. So I would like like you said, whether it be an ad hoc committee or this entire committee or whatever, I'd really like to to to have this conversation again. Let's get it resolved.

And if the answer is 30% or 20%, wherever that ends ends up, let's do but let's build a business case around it. And let's remember that it's about the Blount County residents and keeping Blount County. I don't wanna open it up to where, wow, everybody's now gonna jump in here, and we're gonna have a helter skelter. So I just say that to say I I I'll recommend what I heard a few other folks say in here. I think this requires some additional comments. And based on the data that I had gathered in the past, I think that just supports the decision to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to speak again.

Okay. Commissioner Wells, did you want to put motion together? I mean, I heard a motion a while ago, but is that I guess the how how do we form the committee is my question if if you're gonna put something else together.

First, let me say this. My first recommendation is that we postpone any action tonight.

Okay. Why don't we just why don't we do that, take a motion take a vote on that to begin with?

You need a second to postpone.

Is that okay? Go ahead and vote vote on that. It's fine with me, but Do we have a second to postpone? Have a second by commissioner Sullins? Okay. Let's have one more discussion. Now are you gonna come back with another motion to form some kind of a committee?

I think that would be a natural next recommendation.

Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and vote on this first. Okay? Are you ready to vote on that motion to postpone this this item? We're just we're just voting to postpone the any action on this tonight.

Good. No. We're

I got you.

You got me? Okay.

That's my intent.

If you will, let's vote to postpone. If we don't postpone, then the rest of it is not material. If you will, please vote. Well, you got the motion postponed. Now what do we do?

I guess I would I would then, at at this point, make a recommendation that we form either direct whichever way we wanna do this. I think we ought to at least have a workshop to to discuss this. I really don't think the ad hoc is necessary unless just people wanna bow out, because I think everybody's voice here matters and, has good things to offer. That's why you're here on planning commission. So I'd my recommendation is that we, form a workshop around this particular subject matter and set a date for it.

Well, I

know in the past, we've actually added it to the end of the meeting.

That's fine.

You know, everybody's here already. Sure. Do you have a reasonable agenda? You know? Might make sense.

It might last last just about as long as this one.

That that probably wouldn't make sense because I don't know when we can schedule something to

have conflict. Works for me.

Okay. So why don't we why don't we plan on having this item at the end of the agenda next month for discussion, and maybe you and Doug and whoever else might want to have input on it. At least some discussion between now and then. I think it needs to just be a couple of you. If we get two or three of you, we we'll get into meeting problem.

Everybody okay with that, mister chairman?

Tom? So just to be clear, do we want to I think probably best if you adjourn the next meeting, the next planning commission meeting, and then you would open up and hold a workshop

Yes.

Just for the specific purpose of this. That way we can advertise it separately, and it's a it's a different.

Yep.

Okay.

It is okay? Yeah. That'll be a that will do that then.

So we're sticking with the motion to postpone, and that's

Yeah. Well, the only thing we're doing tonight is post postponing it. I don't guess we have to have a motion to have a separate meeting at the end of the next meeting. That's that's understood.

It's actually basically a voluntary thing. You know, if you decide you wanna stay, you can't do it. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That works.

We got that handled. Are there any other reports from

Can I comment? Committees.

May 2005,

Blount County paid the hunter interest group a lot of money to do a study on the whole county. And I'd like for all these commissioners to look at that hunter interest group about cluster development because none of it none of what has been done is looks like that recommendation.

Is that section in there, Bruce?

I think it's on page five.

Okay. Or Why don't can we dig that out and send that out to everybody between now and Yes. With the within the next month? Also, received the email today with three links that will enable you to fulfill your educational requirements for this year. Are we are you with me? So if you'll take time to watch those three links and tell the secretary that you've completed it, then you will take care of your educational requirements. And that needs to be done by the end of the year. Okay? K. Everybody everybody together on that?

The email.

Okay. Do we have any do we have anybody here who wants to talk about anything that's not that's not on the agenda that we haven't talked about already? Seeing that, are we ready for adjournment? Meeting adjourned.