The silence on this thread is quite telling. The plan's opponents would like this thread to quietly slip off the front page and stay off the "Discussing" list because they do not want people to know the truth about this plan.

Call your Commissioners today ask if them if they are going to stand up for property owners or stand with the wealthy elites who want to buy up land on the cheap. Tell them you support the hillside plan and the expanded rights it grants to owners of sloped land.

That is hilarious!!!I think I hear an echo.

Rikki,

Is it true that there will be more regulations that will follow this "Plan"?

If so, as was discussed in the workshop, why do we need more regulations? Please explain!

The county is not enforcing the regulations now, what will be different? Will more regulations that will not be enforced solve a problem that is "created" by more regulations?

Answer my questions!

Give us all a break on the wealthy and powerful thing. 62,000 parcels will be impacted by this and they are all not wealthy and powerful.

New codes will follow this "Plan" adoption. Yes or NO?

Your mantra that it is just a "Plan", just a "Plan" is not true. More government intervention into the private lives of Knox County citizens.

I do not need any or," want the exemptions and special rights the hillside plan offers?" Conservation subdivisions? Just a way of saying that you want to tell a property owner that they must do something that they do not have to do now! Boy, that's a deal.

Back to my original post..........the government fails to enforce the regulations that are now on the books. So we need to add more regulations that will not be enforced! This will create a "problem" that MUST be addressed by, wait for it, more regulations! Great! Please sir, more!

Better watch out, Rikki - somebody will sic "Jeff Baker" on ya.

It expands property rights by making a property owner do something that the property owner does not have to do now?

What about compliance with the existing regulations?

Here is your answer from the "Plan" document.

Planned Zone Districts
When a zoning change is requested, such as agricultural to residential, planned residential zoning should be recommended by MPC staff and adopted by the legislative bodies. That has been the practice in following General Plan policies for a decade now and should be continued. Planned residential zoning requires site plan review, providing the opportunity to more fully consider the most appropriate natural locations for housing, open space conservation and infrastructure. Consequently, this type of zoning is a most appropriate means to balance private and public benefits.

Zoning Overlays and Plans Review for Permitting
In addition to policies related to rezoning decisions, an amendment to zoning or land development codes is recommended to address (1) consideration of a hillside and ridgetop overlay district, or (2) standardized review of parcel development via the building permit process. Overlay districts are used in many cities and counties, including Brentwood, Tennessee; Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Huntsville, Alabama. Standardized review is a procedure that has proved to be worthwhile in Asheville. One or the other method could be an effective way to address consistency in all hillside development approvals, including cost-saving measures, such as reduced setbacks, narrower roads, forest conservation and density. The proposed program for each alternative is outlined below.

So despite the lack of clarity from rikki and Rachel, new regulation will happen if this plan is approved. Mark Donaldson has repeatedly said at County Commission, that MPC has already begun to develop new Zoning to codify this "Plan" to regulation.

One more note. As far as rikki's repeated statements about Density Bonuses being provided for in the plan I submit the following.

Density Bonus Provision
The density on the site may be raised in relation to the conservation of the steeper slopes and ridgetops that are part of a parcel. In cases relative to the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Area, the planning commission may approve a density bonus of up to10 percent of the total units allowed in the base density when a conservation easement is placed on an undisturbed steep hillside or ridgetop portion of a parcel.

Notice the usage of the word "May". In every reference to Density Bonus in the "Plan", the words "May" or "Should" are used as a suggestion rather than a definitive statement like, "will".

So to me, this claim of density bonuses is just that, a claim, by supporters of the plan, but in reality it "May" or may not become law when this "Plan" gets the force of Zoning behind it.

Did not write the "Plan". Correct?

If the individuals on the "Task Force" did not write the "Plan", how was input from concerned citizens (like myself who did speak to the "Task Force") incorporated by those who did not participate in the "Public Meetings"?

Also, if it was a water tower that was the excuse for this whole exercise, and another water tower, cell tower, etc. can still go up regardless of the public outcry, why are more rules and regulations on simple independent property owners necessary?

As we all know, more regulations drive up the cost of almost any activity. More regulations will require that more taxpayer dollars will have to be spent to develop those regulation and then, in theory enforcement of those regulations.

And, should the "Plan" be passed, when the concepts in the "Plan" are codified, I will have to take more of my time to review, comment and maybe resist the new codes as they are released.

The bottom line, why is this necessary at all?

I will.

Let me try an analogy:

Have any of you ever read a sector plan? If not, please do so.

Sector plans, like the HRPP, are full of recommendations. Some get implemented fully, some get implemented partially or in a different way, and some never get implemented at all. Reading just one sector plan will make that clear as cystal.

There's no way to know exactly what new regulations will or will not be implemented if the plan passes. All we know is the alternatives the plan recommends we pursue.

Here's how the process works: first, you make a plan, which contains the general direction you want to go and recommendations on how to get there (usually said recommendations contain alternatives, as does the HRPP in some instances). Then you get consensus on that (that includes the appropriate legislative body). That sets the parameters for the direction you want to take.

THEN you write regulations to implement the recommendations that need regulation (not all of them will). Each of those regulations goes through a public review process, an MPC vote, and a legislative body vote, so they may or may not pass.

If you start writing regs w/o a plan, you a) don't have a guidebook for what you want to accomplish, and b) are spending $$$ doing something w/o a clue whether there's even a consensus that you should be looking at it at all.

This is what is done with every single freakin' land use plan in Knox County. Never before have I heard anybody suggest we write regs before we have a plan. In my opinion, this is pretty much nothing but a delaying tactic.

You do this in your personal life too. For example, my husband and I are going to Oregon soon to visit family and friends, and to take some vacation time. We didn't start by making hotel reservations. We started by making a plan; e.g, figuring out when we could go, how long we could stay, when we needed to be back, and what we wanted to accomplish on the trip. THEN we started buying plane tickets, making hotel reservations, and coordinating specific dates to rendevous with folks.

I have just received a Robocall, asking me to contact my Commissioner and tell them to vote for this plan because it will "Stop Flooding". I cannot believe that the recorded message claimed that this "Plan" would "Stop Flooding".

Will the lies never stop?

Wonder what group is paying for the Robocalls? To try something like that, in the eleventh hour of this debate. Sure seems like some group is desperate and will stoop to anything to get their way.

Someone or some group can spend money doing Robocalls, but money can't be spent to notify the owners of the effected properties?

I agree with RidgeTopResident on his post from the KNS, what the hell is going on here, what is the truth, what group would find this issue so important that they would pay for a deceitful Robocall campaign?

Unless there is some magical, so far unannounced provision in the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan that would restore all the MPC approved problematic developments in Knox County that have caused run off problems, than the idea that this "Plan" would "Stop Flooding" is just a lie.

PS, Yeah we all know that water runs down hill, and that if you wipe out all the vegitation, than it can create water runoff issues.

But could someone tell me if Joe Hultquist has any real, marketable, professional skill set?

According to the HRPP, the Clearing guidlines between 25% and 40% slope are 15% maximum clearing, total. The 50% Clearing allowance is in the 15% to 25% slope area.

Ridgetop - two questions: do you have plans to develop your land? How is it now zoned? How is the land adjacent to you zoned? Are you in the urban growth boundary, the planned growth area, or the rural area?

As you say, the devil is in the details and those matter when it comes to factors that come into play as to how you may develop your land.

It's a bit like having a bias against poll workers, census takers, restroom attendants, substitute teachers, or others in the lower echelon of society.

Link

Ridgetop - it really isn't necessary to clear 50' from a building. For one of the most sucessful developments I worked on the builder got on his bobcat himself and left trees within 10' of the buildings. Smallish trees admittedly, that could recover from the root damage. Those units sold like hotcakes. When he went on to develop the cow pasture behind phase I the units languished on the market. Many buyers like trees. They keep the place cool and save on air conditioning costs.

That is a great way to say what two great men, William McAdoo and Steve Dupree, have said before:

"It is impossible to win an argument with an ignorant man."