[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

For your zoning agenda items 1-19, would you kindly provide the state statute regarding governmental rezoning and prior zoning and / or plan amendment case numbers for all items?

Thanks very much.

[Andy Fox]

I drafted proposed resolutions for each one of these agenda items, which I will post separately. Because it’s unusual for a commissioner to draft a proposed resolution, we were trying to work through how a resolution number gets assigned. You can click through to the resolutions now, but I was planning on posting these separately anyways, to give everyone extra notice.

[Andy Fox]

Each one of the proposed findings contains the immediate previous zoning case number. Also, Dru uploaded relevant documents to the cases that can be viewed by clicking through the online agenda.

[Andy Fox]

You requested a state statute. I am relying on what appears to be a longstanding provision in the charter that allows the Commission to apply for a rezoning: Art. 6, Sec. 6.30. In Agenda Item 15, the 2002 case file summary for 4-M-02-RZ, which was uploaded, reveals that the Commission was the applicant and initiated that rezoning.

[Andy Fox]

Commissioner Frazier

I wasn’t specific enough in my citation of the provision allowing rezonings to be initiated by the Commission. The provision is not found in the Charter, it’s found in the zoning ordinances of the Knox County Code, Appendix A:
https://library.municode.com/tn/knox_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_APXAZO_ART6ADENIN

[Kim Frazier]

Thanks very much, Commissioner Fox. This is helpful.

[Andy Fox]

You’re welcome!

[Kim Frazier]

Looking for some clarification:

RE: RLA-16590
Case Summary File # provided is for the Plan Amendment which is related, but not the zoning. Zoning Case File # is I-L-24-RZ

Additionally, the resolution mentions a lease agreement. Can that be provided?

Also, this resolution mentions an active lawsuit. Do any of the other parcels referenced have active lawsuits?
148 049 – TDEC reviewing
138 270
138 274
138 104 – mentions lawsuit

RLA-16588
The resolution mentions an ongoing review by attorneys for TDEC. When will they provide their findings?

Lastly, is 7-W-24-RZ for parcels 138 270,104 at 8802 and 8744 Sevierville Pike also related to these resolutions?

[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

Have you been in communication with the property owners of the parcels referenced in your resolutions?

I had the opportunity to spend some time in the county archives to review the meeting minutes, related documents, and the VHS recording of the August 26, 2002 County Commission Meeting. The discussion answered many of my questions that were unanswered by the minutes and I am happy to share what I learned.

In 1979, the Schuberts submitted an application to rezone the property from Ag to I. The case was heard at MPC on July 12, 1979 and was denied with a vote of 9-0. The applicant and property owner appealed to County Commission and on August 20, 1980, after several postponements, the 19 member Commission approved the request and rezoned the property from A (Agricultural) to I (Industrial) [7-C-79-RZ]. The property owner had a tenant wishing to store dynamite powder. The tenant did not operate the business long and 7 small storage units were left onsite.

20 years later, Knox County adopted the 2000 Growth Policy Plan.

In 2002, community members reached out to County Commissioners inquiring about the property because the land had not been used for Industrial purposes for nearly 20 years. Some time prior to March, perhaps February of 2002, a request came from the intergovernmental committee in the form of a resolution (02-1-903). Sadly, this record could not be located, but from my research I am assuming that this resolution was a request from County Commission to Planning Commission to act on their behalf to initiate an application to governmentally rezone this parcel. The sponsor was Commissioner Howard Pinkston and the application type was “Governmental Rezoning”.

Planning Commission, at the direction of Director Norman Whitaker, filed an application on March 13, 2002 to rezone from Industrial to Ag and a case number was assigned 4-M-02-RZ. The staff recommended approval because the Industrial zone was out of character with surrounding and agricultural zoning and development. The site was no longer used for industrial purposes and did not align with the growth plan. The sector plan proposes low density and rural residential uses and slope protection for this site. Planning Commission met on April 11, 2002, but this item was postponed to May 09, 2002.

At the May 09, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Schuberts, as the property owners were represented by Imogene King with Franz, McConnel & Seymour opposing the governmental rezoning without their consent stating that as the property owners, they would like to continue to look at options for usage for the property to try to be creative. Infrastructure was not there to support Industrial and they asked that the case be postponed until June 13, 2002 or deny. Electricity was never connected and the property was taxed as Agriculture the entire period.
Mr. Bob Dykes with the Doyle Homeowners Association spoke on behalf of the community. A petition was submitted with over 300 signatures. 22 surrounding property owners signed. Mike Brown also spoke referencing the South County Sector Plan. The motion passed 9-0

On August 26, 2002, Knox County Commission considered the recommendation of Planning Commission for governmental rezoning case number 4-M-02-RZ. Director Whitaker presented on behalf of Planning Commission. Mike Moyers was the law director at the time. Arthur Seymour was the counsel representing the property owner, Mrs. Schubert. Mr. Seymour stated that his client had received a letter from Knox County notifying her that her property at 2814 Tipton Station was being rezoned from Industrial to Ag without her consent. Robust discussion followed stating that the request to rezone came out of the intergovernmental committee by resolution 02-1-903 – (missing from the archives). The conversation ranged from unprecedented to spot zoning to correcting an error in the growth plan to lack of use of current zoning for a long period of time. The property was rezoned from I (Industrial) and F (Floodway) to A (Agricultural) and F (Floodway) [4-M-02-RZ] without the consent of the property owner by a vote of 10-7-0-2.

Soon after, Seymour did file suit on behalf of the property owner against Knox County, but withdrew. I reached out to the law firm to verify that records exist.

Really interesting.

[Andy Fox]

Commissioner Frazier

I met with a representative for DR Horton today and a representative for Thunder Mountain today. These meetings covered the representatives for all the parcels I proposed to bring up for rezoning.

I did not file a resolution for proposing to rezone 7-W-24-RZ. I also did not propose to rezone parcel 138 274, which is the Legacy Parks Foundation land. There are two separate rezoning resolutions for 8744 Chapman Highway, however, which is parcel 138 104, because this is how the August 2024 zonings were obtained. The previous rezonings are identified as 1-L-24-RZ and 1-K-24-RZ, as I read the backup documents. The Bower Field portion of 8744 Chapman Hwy. falls under 1-L-24-RZ.

Each parcel that I proposed to be brought up for rezoning is involved in a lawsuit. I refer to these by their common address as well:
*2814 Tipton Station Rd., parcel 148 049, Knox County Circuit Court Docket No. 3-247-24
*8802 Sevierville Pike, parcel 138 270, Knox County Circuit Court Docket No. 1-219-22,
*8744 Chapman Hwy., parcel 138 104, Knox County Circuit Court Docket No. 2-247-24

*Item 15, 2814 Tipton Station
Thank you very much for the back story context regarding 2814 Tipton Station Rd., parcel 148 049. Here is some additional history:

This parcel was part of what was known as Goddard farm, if you go back to the 1950s. In 1955, the Goddards sold this parcel to a company then known as Atlas Powder Company. The dynamite that was stored on this location was used in the expansion of Chapman Highway to four lanes, by my understanding. There was also dynamite storage just a few miles north on Magazine Road, which is why it is called “Magazine Road,” this is where magazines for the storage of dynamite were also located. Atlas Powder Company eventually became ICI Americas Inc., and sold the parcel to the Schubert family in 1979 as you note.

If you are interested in seeing evidence of the dynamite magazines, I suggest you go to the KGIS website and look at some of the historical aerial photographs for this parcel. They first appear in the 1959 aerial.

TDEC expects the request for additional information to be provided by November 5. I have a letter from Dr. Christina R McNaughton, East Tennessee Regional Manager for TDEC Division of Remediation. I was informed by the DR Horton representative I met with that a phase I study was conducted and nothing was found. Dr. McNaughton advises that a phase I investigation should have revealed munitions, i.e. dynamite, were located on this parcel. I think we need to have a better understanding about what a phase I investigation is. After reading Dr. McNaughton’s letter, my perception of a phase I investigation is that it should disclose whether there is anything of concern, which would lead to further investigation. I will forward this letter to Dru so that she can post it as information for item 15, which is now characterized as 24-10-1-RZ.

[Author]

Posts