I like Bob Booker, and was glad to see him appointed, but I'm not thrilled with his emerging voting pattern.

So it came back again last week & passed giving all the power to the MPC to decide who and what they want to allow. NO SET RULES.,

While MPC did vote to make landscape contracting in an ag zone a use on review, it's a gross exaggeration to say there are no set rules. Perhaps you should read the actual amendments that MPC passed.

The only difference between this document and the version passed was that the required distance to a property line was increased from 50 to 100 feet.

I realize that some folks still don't think this provides enough protection to neighbors of landscape contractors, and I respect that opinion. I assume they will be lobbying their County Commissioners to vote against this when it comes before Commission.

But if you're going to be upset, be upset about what really happened.

P.S. And this came back at Thursday's meeting because MPC voted in January to postpone the issue until a working group could look at it more closely. There was no nefarious scheme by TPTB to bring it back.

Sounds like somebody may be caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Hope they throw this out the window. Good Luck!

I watched the Commission meeting on tv when Commissioner Lumpy Lambert got in that mans face & tried to belittle him for speaking against a developers request. Also Lumpy got up two times out of his Commission seat & went out to sit down beside the attorney Aurthur Seymore & whisper in his ear. He was the attorney for the developer. I have never seen anything like that at any Commission meeting. That was in front of the camera & the other 16 Commissioners. Very brazen. Wonder what they were talking about? VERY WEIRD BEHAVIOR! Seymore sure seems to be connected to Lumpy. Maybe a Ethics question here.

Thank you UGC.

That's the real problem here. People are moving to the ag zone to recreate a residential environment or set up some kind of business.

Those of us living in the ag zone tend to be more concerned about sprawl of all types. The sprawlers (residential and commercial alike) are bumping into each other in the ag zone and fighting over the details.

If you try to make the ordinance more specific, someone gets mad. If you leave things the way they are - someone gets mad. Meanwhile back at the ranch....I'm watching monster houses go up at the edge of my land while another neighbor complains about a landscaping business getting to close to his subdivision. Seems like we are doomed to continue this war until everything is subdivided and paved.

I don't know if this is any consolation and won't help if the landscaping operation already exists

Another note just for people to be aware of: these existing business are NOT grandfathered in because they were ruled illegal in the first place. Each of them will have to go through the Use on Review process or risk being cited as illegal by the County.

I heard that the MPC would not allow the landowners that came to that meeting to speak against the use on review proposal.

You heard incorrectly.

I know of two homeowners in their 70's and 80's that each told me they were not going to go to a zoning meeting regarding property adjacent to each of their homes because they thought it was a waste of time. That is a viewpoint after a lifetime of exposure to the local way things work. They both talked about a history of wasted effort threw their lives. As one said "They will just wear you down and do it anyway."

As far as MPC, I blame the mayors who appointed the commissioners. I believe they knew exactly what they were doing.

I am all for meaningful public participation, and any ideas to make that work better I would like to hear about. We had wonderful success with public participation on the south waterfront; that is kind of the local gold standard on how to do public participation.

OTOH, it was an 18 month process with gazillions of meetings, and obviously every issue can't be treated that way.

I'd just add that because a decision didn't go your way, doesn't necessarily mean you weren't heard (although sometimes people are NOT heard). Sometimes it just means that there's a difference of opinion.

And to speak specifically to the landscape contractor issue, I completely agree with Lisa (and Michael Kane) that the fundamental problem is with Knox County's ag zone. We need to have a complete overhaul of that part of the ordinance.

P.S. Lisa, I wasn't there, but was the public allowed to speak at the workshop? I assume most MPC Commissioners DID attend that.

Since I'm anonymously accused by name above, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things and give my "bureaucrat" perspective.

While this action arose from a specific case, it highlighted a very clear gap in the Knox County Zoning Ordinance. There is no mention of landscaping use anywhere.

Some folks argue it’s the same activity as a farm or a nursery (both allowed by RIGHT in the Ag Zone). Some say it’s similar to a Commercial Mulching Operation or a Composting Facility (both allowed as a USE ON REVIEW in the Ag Zone). Some say it is a full blown commercial activity and should be rezoned Commercial or Industrial.

I think that all of these people make a good argument.

This is why I advised the BZA to ask MPC to look at Landscaping Operations and determine where it should fit in the Zoning Ordinance, recognizing that other similar activities are already allowed as a Use on Review in the Ag Zone. From there, the process was derailed and became very heated and personal. I served on the task force, which was comprised of 3 MPC Commissioners, MPC/county staff, and a representative of the League of Women Voters. The group reached consensus on what was proposed to the MPC (see Rachel's link above), which basically sets up thresholds of activity to interpret and enforce. Last week, the Planning Commission passed these amendments and they will be before the full County Commission in May and June.

I realize that it's not a perfect solution to issues with the Ag Zone. Some people feel it opens up the door for all kinds of commercial activity. In my opinion, it actually does the opposite. It puts into effect a clear, codified, and enforceable process in regulating this type of activity. I also recognize that regulations by themselves are not enough, and that is why our office has been at work the past several months in developing stronger methods of enforcement (i.e. civil penalties).

I have a lot of respect for Lisa and usually consider her an ally on issues of land use and quality growth. We agree on many things, but this isn't one of them. She and many others, for some good reasons, simply do not trust County Government and MPC. I understand that there has been a lot of controversy in the past, and I assure you there will continue to be controversy going forward. However, I also believe that things are evolving. Involved citizens are now serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Both Mayors’ MPC appointments over the past few years have been pretty fair and well-balanced (the last four being Laura Cole, Michael Kane, Ursula Bailey and Rachel Craig who are proven, engaged community leaders). City and County Government is as transparent as it’s ever been, and while there's always room for improvement, things are hardly business as usual. Are things perfect now? Never. Is there consensus among Knox County's 400,000 citizens about how and where we grow? Never, but these are all positive changes that I'm hoping will build some trust among constituents.

I also think deliberative dialogue is a really good concept and I appreciate the link, Lisa. However, as a public servant it can be difficult to accomplish this in an environment where citizens automatically distrust you, anonymously spread accusations of conspiracy, and think only in terms of their specific situation, ignoring the broader context. I agree that the South Waterfront process (which I served on) was excellent. I think it has been a great model to follow, however this started as a pretty narrow issue that has now spread to discussion of breaking up the Agriculture Zone, which makes up 70% of the balance of Knox County's land.

At any rate, I'm sorry for the long post, but I felt like I needed to defend CM's comment. Anyone who knows me can attest that I appreciate civic engagement and that I try to do my best to serve people. Neither Arthur Seymour nor Commissioner Lambert have contacted me about the development of these amendments. In my line of work I can easily have both sides of an issue upset with me. However, I always try to be fair, objective and consistent in carrying out my job duties. If anyone has any questions please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Thanks,

Grant Rosenberg
Knox County Office of Neighborhoods & Code Enforcement
grant.rosenberg@knoxcounty.org
215-4751

don't go into the ag zone expecting a peaceful, rural setting unless you can afford a VERY large piece of property with a building site in the middle.

It's highly unlikely that you will be crowded by commercial property in the ag zone but you can count on residential sprawl and you can expect some or all of the following: runoff from subdivision development, noise, 4 wheelers gone amuck, people trespassing on your property, people hunting on your land and fishing in your ponds without permission, helicopters buzzing your home, trash in the streams, chem-lawn trucks, people burning leaves and plastic on the weekends, lots of lighting (because people in subdivisions think it's too dang dark in the country!), people cutting down your trees (with the excuse that you have so much what's it to you?), kids with bb guns, hunters/poachers who leave carcasses and liquor bottles in the woods, hang gliders, hot air balloons landing in your fields, dog kennels, shooting (in the ag zone they like to target practice before hunting season and gun fire is an appropriate subsitute for fireworks on 4th of July and/or New Years), neighbors tearing down barbed wire fences on the border of the subdivision because it's sharp and 'unattractive', compliants about smelly livestock (how dare they live so close to a subdivision!), and complaints about 'tractor noises' early in the morning, dogs running freely through property chasing livestock, dog food/cat food/garbage left out which attracts coyotes (they don't seem them in the subdivisions but they are there) followed by complaints about missing felines, etc.

Would it be more peaceful living between subdivisions or buying up land right next to a business park? Which is more invasive - landscaping business or apartments? All depends on what your tolerance level is and hey - it can change with the next property sale.

If you want peace, think very, very carefully about where you hang your hat and be prepared to compromise or move to Montana. You might want to consider a large lot in the city where there are more restrictions in place to protect the residential lifestyle

If this doesn't scare you, come on out! There are some folks out here that make great neighbors and we like wide open spaces so much that we are willing to live with the encroachment.
lc

I think that I will wait & see if this use on review for commercial business goes in before I take the chance.

Just to be precise, it isn't a use on review for just any old commercial business. It's use on review for landscape contractors.

There are other uses on review in the ag zone that have been in the ordinance forever. You can find the list in the zoning code on the MPC website.

Then they voted again & the only thing that changed in the proposal was a setback of 100 feet instead of 50.

That's not true. The proposal passed by MPC in April was vastly different from that they turned down in January. Check the MPC minutes.

The change you're referring to is a change Commissioners made to the staff recommendation in April. Staff recommended a 50 foot setback; Commissioners voted for a 100 foot setback.

That landscaper said that he was denied the ability to apply for commercial rezoning when he tried by Mark Donaldson.

I'm sure he wasn't "denied" anything. Anybody can apply for any kind of rezoning they like. I suspect he was simply told that a request for commercial rezoning was unlikely to pass since neither staff nor Commission wants to put commercial zones in the middle of the ag zone.

A commercial zone would allow much more uses - and more intensive uses - than just landscape contractors.

Well, we've certainly gotten far afield of the Dollar General haven't we?

The fact that so much of Knox County is zoned AG (approx. 70%) and that there are already so many uses that are not compatible with residential speaks to my point that we should revisit the AG zones and try to separate the uses. I think there was some support for that concept at the last MPC vote, but not enough votes to pass it.

I don't think County Commission will pass the proposed amendment as it stands. At least I hope not.

I do understand Grant's position that he needs a clear ordinance that he can enforce since contractors were not addressed in any zoning code previously.

I think one concern of Grant's and others is that people who have existing businesses in the AG zone and live on their property might successfully seek commercial zoning. I certainly wouldn't rule that out, because as Grant points out, the MPC decisions don't always go as one would hope and neighborhoods have had good reason to be distrustful in the past.

But I still don't think this is the right way to handle landscaping businesses and I respectfully disagree that MPC made the right decision.

I simply posted the list for information. You may have been aware of it but I doubt all KV readers are.