| At the last county commission meeting, commissioners
passed a moratorium on any new residential developments of more than 9
lots joining a county or state road of less than 20'. The moratorium is
to be in place until the commission and planning commission can develop
a plan for the new road standards. The idea of
the new road standards comes from input from many citizens across the
county. In the past, developments of more than 5 lots only needed an 18'
road to allow connections. The idea of a 40, 50, 60 or more lot
subdivision connecting to smaller, roads doesn't set well with residents
in the more rural areas of the county and creates safety issues with the
higher volumes of traffic. Not only is an increase in traffic volume a
problem, but the type of traffic must also be considered.
For instance, fire trucks, school buses and ambulances
are about 9'-9.5' wide. Dump trucks, equipment trailers and so on tend
to be 8.5'-9' wide. So it's clear to see, an 18' road standard is just
not adequate to safely allow additional higher volume of traffic.
In my last story about the new road standards, I
predicted residential developers would not like the new standards. And
right on queue, we received a letter from one of our notorious
developers, John Cook. According to Mr. Cook, 18' roads are just fine,
that's the way Knox County does it. Anybody traveled in Knox County
lately? Cook just has all kinds of reasons a wider road standard is bad,
for him any way. But the best complaint he puts forth is this will keep
young people from being able to buy a house. This from a man that sells
nothing less 600-700k houses.
To his point of how land values would go down, two
thoughts. He says the new standard will cause home prices to go up. Then
he says the new road standard would cause land values to go down. For
what it's worth, a 1.3 acre lot on the corner of Town Creek Road and
Ford Road just sold last week for $140,000.00.
I can assure you, the Loudon County commission is
taking actions to protect and preserve the county regardless what Blount
County developers want.
Below is the letter from Mr. Cook. And yes, the is the
same John Cook that sued Loudon County back in 2021 because the
commission denied his rezone request for a high density development in
the Glendale community. He lost that suit.
Loudon
County Planning Commission Members,
Good afternoon. Most of you know
me. My wife and I reside at 2271 Sandy Shore
Drive, Lenoir City, TN 37772. My wife went to
Greenback schools. Im often called an
out-of-town developer because the businesses
that my brother and I have built has a home
office in Blount County, but we have been
building and developing in Loudon County for
many years. I live here and we will have a
residence here as long as I live. One day I hope
my daughter can have her own home in the
community.
This evening Mr. Jenkins will
bring before you for your consideration a
request from County Commission to require that
all new developments of 10 lots or more connect
to a road 20 wide or wider that also then
connects to a road 20 or wider and so on until
it is on a main highway. Of course the cost of
this would be on the developer to do, if it is
even possible.
Watching the video of the meeting
at which this transpired it appears the
commission is trying to stop major development
that adjoins roads of less than 18 primarily
and that makes perfect sense. An 18 wide
roadway is the standard that Knox County and
many others require in connection to existing
County roads for developments. This I do not
disagree with at all. 18 in width is the common
standard. Right now we are doing a 264 lot
development in Knox County and the road averaged
17 wide leading to one of our entrances. Knox
County required it be widened to 18 and shared
in the expense since the road was well past 50%
of its life.
What I do disagree with is taking
this standard and widening it to 20. This is
clearly an overreach and another way that Loudon
County is trying to stifle growth and increase
housing prices so that only elites can live in
Loudon County. No new growth and no houses for
our children.
There is absolutely no reason to
require roads to be 20 wide, especially for an
addition of just 10 lots. Certainly this is no
longer about resident safety at that width. It
will add significant cost to already costly
development, especially in combination with the
½ acre lot minimum, and all but ensure no new
development takes place unless magically you can
find a county road that is 20 wide already and
also has all of the necessary utilities. So
anyone that had property connected to a 18-20
wide road that had utilities now their property
will automatically go down in value because it
does not meet the standard.
What we were told was the
proposed widening of the road would not just
involve widening it, but also topping it with 2
of topper the entire length until you get to a
20 wide road. This is even more egregious.
Given the complete lack of need
for widening a county road to 20 for a normal
subdivision for safety concerns I would make
these suggestions:
-
All
new developments require connection to a
road averaging 18 in width. If not
averaging 18 in width than the developer
may widen the road at their cost or if the
width has been reduced by use than the
County Road Commissioner can make the call
to aid in the widening.
-
For
developments above a certain limit, maybe 20
or 40 units, add an additional qualification
that a Traffic Study be done (at the
developers expense of course). A traffic
study is very common in many jurisdictions
above a certain unit count to ensure there
are not additional safety considerations
such as road widening, traffic signals, turn
lanes, etc. The County can then determine at
their discretion which recommendations they
believe need to be implemented. I can supply
an example if any of you have not seen one.
I look forward to further
discussion on this matter and plan to attend the
next workshop. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
In appreciation,
-J
John Cook
President
Cook Bros. Homes & Heritage Land
Development Partners
|