Blount County Commission votes to recommend
eliminating cluster developments (& PUDS)
Mariah Franklin thedailytimes.com
The Blount County Commission voted to recommend
eliminating cluster and planned unit
developments at its Thursday,
April 21 meeting, among other suggested
changes to zoning and subdivision regulations.
Dozens of members of the public attended the commission meeting, which lasted for over two hours. Twelve of the 31 items of new business before the commission dealt with zoning regulation amendments and subdivision regulations. The resolution on cluster developments mirrors a resolution passed in the county’s ad hoc committee on zoning and subdivision regulations April 14. Commissioner Tom Stinnett provided the sole vote against the resolution, which passed without discussion. He told The Daily Times after the meeting ended that he voted in opposition to the resolution because the ad hoc committee, on which he served, already forwarded a recommendation to eliminate cluster developments to the planning commission.
Commissioners Linda Webb and Scott King
abstained from the vote.
In 2020, the commission voted to allow cluster developments, which typically feature relatively smaller lot sizes and higher density of homes per acre than traditional residential developments. That vote, commissioners have said in previous meetings, was a mistake. The commission also voted to recommend minimum lot sizes of ¾ an acre for lots on sewer and septic. An amendment offered by Commissioner Joe McCulley to change ‘¾ an acre’ to ‘½ an acre’ failed. The rationale for the ¾ minimum, Commissioner Mike Akard said, was “to avoid the big push to build things in small areas just because we could have sewer. I’m not thinking that ½ an acre is too small, from the ¾ an acre.” “I would like to see there be no motivation for them to fly in there with sewer and pack in a whole bunch of houses ,” Akard said, noting also that the ad hoc committee recommended a ¼ an acre minimum lot size. Many resolutions concerning zoning and subdivision regulations were subject to amendments. Several commissioners pushed for amending resolutions to reflect the fact that the commission would be issuing recommendations to the county’s planning commission, rather than taking action on its own authority. Commissioner Steve Mikels pushed back against those amendments, telling other commissioners, “We’re not up here because we’re necessarily qualified for all of the things that we cover.” He noted that he opposed spending “a bunch of money” in crafting recommendations concerning development and zoning, preferring to leave such recommendations to county staff.
A
resolution to recommend considering
reducing the overall suburbanizing
district footprint by up to 50% also
passed. Commissioner Anderson, the
commission’s parliamentarian, registered
some concerns with the resolution’s
legal implications.
In response, Akard, a sponsor of the resolution, said, “You can reduce the overall footprint by a significant margin and leave certain areas that are reasonable — that anybody would deem reasonable.” “The overall footprint doesn’t have to shrink 50% everywhere to achieve 50%, and it may be 70% when it’s all said and done, or it might be 10,” he told the commission. |
BACK
4/25/22