When Knox County Commission passes it, apparently.
At its November meeting Monday night, Commission did, as expected, vote on a revised version of the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan that it had rejected last spring. And it passed, on a 7-3-1 vote. But there's an asterisk. Actually, a whole bunch of asterisks. The biggest one came with the addition of a paragraph inserted by Commissioner Richard Briggs, at the behest of the Knoxville Chamber. The intent, Briggs said, was to clarify the legal standing of the plan. But while the paragraph seems to do many things, "clarify" is not exactly one of them. Here's what it says:
This plan and the principals, objectives, policies and guidelines included herein are advisory in nature and constitute non-binding recommendations for consideration in connection with development of steeply sloped areas.
While this plan is being adopted as an amendment to the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan 2033, it is intended to provide background and supplemental information of an advisory nature and to serve as a guide to future MPC staff recommendations, but it not intended to form an official part of the General Plan which would be binding on future land use decisions by City Council, County Commission, MPC, the City or County Boards of Zoning Appeals pursuant to T.C.A 13-3-304.
Any comparable provisions of the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan 2033 or any Sector Plan which relate to hillside and ridgetop protection shall also be considered advisory consistent with this plan.
Got that? To try to translate it into something approaching English, it seems to suggest that the 70-plus page plan should be used as "a guide" for MPC recommendations on hillside development, but that nobody else should feel obliged to take those recommendations seriously if they don't want to. It also suggests that County Commission or City Council could pass their own development ordinances at odds with the plan--say, by only limiting development on slopes of 25 percent or more, rather than the 15 percent established by the plan.
But is that even legal? Can Commission pass an amendment to the county's General Plan that is not really an amendment to the General Plan? And how about that third sentence, which seems to retroactively amend any references to hillside or ridgetop protection in any other part of the General Plan? Can a non-binding amendment be simultaneously binding on already established law? "I don't think so," says MPC Executive Director Mark Donaldson. "And I'll probably make that point to the Planning Commission."
Ah yes, the Planning Commission. The same body that passed the original Hillside Plan last December is going to have to weigh in on County Commission's new version this December. It will then forward its recommendations back to County Commission, probably in January. At that point, County Commission will have to vote again. And, to make things even more complicated, some of the seven commissioners who voted for the revised version last night have already said they will vote against it when it comes back to them--because they don't fundamentally like the plan to begin with. Meanwhile, depending on what MPC says, some of the commissioners who voted "No" on Monday--including Tony Norman, who co-chaired the task force that wrote the original plan--could vote "Yes" the next time around.
Confused? Just remember that this current iteration of County Commission is almost universally praised for being more effective, efficient, and transparent than the old 19-member body.
Meanwhile, City Council is set to vote on the plan--possibly without the Briggs amendment--next week. Which would in effect send two slightly different versions of the plan back to MPC for consideration.
Comments » 0
Be the first to post a comment!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.