[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

Have you provided these sources to the Mayor’s staff and department heads and discussed?

[Kim Frazier]

To clarify, the grant funding in question has already been appropriated. I encourage all Commissioners to have individual discussions with the Mayor’s staff and county departments to further discuss.

[Kim Frazier]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Kim Frazier]

This is very helpful information, Commissioner Rawls. CAC also has some insightful information, as well as, Director Caldwell. He has a very informative single audit report regarding all grants.

[Kim Frazier]

The plan amendment review cycle is for Planning Commission. County Commission hears plan amendment cases in the months following.

[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Russell,

Will you kindly confirm / clarify the items that you would like pulled from consent for any questions or discussion, please?

Thank you.

[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

Have you reached out to the property owner to notify them that their property will discussed by the legislative body of Knox County? After speaking with legal yesterday, it is my opinion that the County has a responsibility to the property owner to notify them. I would encourage using the Planning Office’s notification process as this is related to zoning.

[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

Have you reached out to the property owner to notify them that their property will discussed by the legislative body of Knox County? After speaking with legal yesterday, it is my opinion that the County has a responsibility to the property owner to notify them. I would encourage using the Planning Office’s notification process as this is related to a land use classification.

[Kim Frazier]

Commissioner Fox,

Have you reached out to the property owner to notify them that their property will discussed by the legislative body of Knox County? After speaking with legal yesterday, it is my opinion that the County has a responsibility to the property owner to notify them. I would encourage using the Planning Office’s notification process as this is related to zoning.

Just my two cents.

[Kim Frazier]

I prefer November 21 or December 5.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Kim Frazier]

Thank you, Commissioner Russell.

As a standard of practice, I encourage you to reach out to the agenda item’s sponsor and have preliminary discussions regarding any comments or questions that you may have, and ask them to attend the agenda review meeting should you want to continue the dialogue before our voting meeting the following week.

Hope this is helpful.

[Kim Frazier]

Thank you, Commissioner Russell.

All zoning agenda items are heard by County Commission. Unlike, Planning Commission’s Zoning Agenda and County Commission’s Regular Agenda, agenda items are not placed on consent or non consent. Therefore, all of the items that you listed can be discussed.

For specific questions regarding zoning agenda items, Director Amy Brooks and Director Jim Snowden are Commission’s points of contact.

I hope that this helps.

[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.

[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]

Thanks very much, Commissioner Fox. This is helpful.

[Author]

Posts