To all Shannon Glen residents:
I am more on your side than you think, but with your unwillingness to negotiate, you are about to get exactly what you do not want. Here is what is going to happen now:
Your item was pulled off the table because it will not show up again as you see it now. It will never come before the BOMA again, because it will never be a PUD again. The city has the MOST room to negotiate during the PUD process and if it comes before you as a straight zoning (which it will next) it will only come before the Planning Commission. At that level, it meets the zoning requirements and the developer has been known to provide whatever is needed (which is a very good thing for you all) to enhance the project thus getting it approved.
From now on, as long as it meets the zoning requirement, it will be approved. Whatever advice you were given is just plain wrong and in the end it will be to your detriment (if you are against a road and development next to your property). I would be more than happy to fill you in on any of the procedural process from here on out, but unless you get on the stick pretty fast, your moment to negotiate is ending VERY quickly.
Call me a pawn, or a plant, or bought off, or whatever else you like. If you know me at all you know that is just flat incorrect. I was (and still am) after you getting the ability to find a "happy medium" with this development, but your tactics have made that impossible.
Feel free to let me know if I can help, but if I were you I would drop the "all or nothing" approach because you are going to get stuck with nothing.
Be thankful that in the end it is Mr. Gordon's group that is developing this property, because if it were a handful of others you would all be very unhappy in a few months.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Shannon Glen
Posted by Gorilla in the Corner at 9:33 AM
Labels: Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Planning Commission, Traffic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Ratings
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is a series of personal opinions and is not meant to reflect an official position by the City of Spring Hill.
28 comments:
I find it very interesting that your chose to first involve yourself by speaking at the BOMA meeting last night. You are (and have been) on the Shannon Glen Yahoo Group. You've received (or had access to) all of our discussions over the past week. You chose to not involve yourself until last night when you warned the BOMA to "not cave" to the citizens of Shannon Glen.
The sad part of the matter is that you could probably been a huge help to us. It's obvious that you are very well versed (more than most of us) in the workings of our government. You could have helped us and helped Spring Hill. Unfortunately, your tactics have destroyed your credibility.
I shared my thoughts with several residents of your neighborhood after the meeting a week ago. At that time, none of you were in any mood to negotiate and was basically told "thank you but no thank you"
Sometimes passion gets so intense, you do not truly hear when a dissenting view comes to you. I assumed that you were all getting good advice from Mr. Dinwiddie.
WOW, Gorilla, seems that you are making the same statements about this, that I stated about the Hospital. Where you and others so passionate that you could not hear me?
I'd like to hear the information you have to share.
Thanks -
Karen
Shannon Glen neighbor
The property beneath the proposed shoppes at belshire is zoned R2. As such the proposed Mixed Use PUD was in clear violation of both state and municipal law. See the master land use plan, Tn Code Annotated, and Spring HIll zoning ordinances for any clarification you require. I am not nor will I ever be intimidated by the government that I elected. Your proposal that we shrink away from this because of fear for what could go there is ridiculous. R2 development will be a lot easier to swallow than Mixed Use PUD. We live in a great city with some awesome representatives and I am proud that our actions resulted in the proposal being removed from the agenda. Rest assured that we have been and will continue to pay attention to our government in operation.
I respect your rights to disagree with my opinion. Public meetings are democracy in action. Your proposal that the BOMA stop listening to it's constituents was shocking. Each alderman that I contacted directly offered their time and attention to listen to my concerns. You don't find that everywhere. The TN sunshine law ensures that we will be aware of any new developments concerning property adjoining our subdivision and that no secret votes or meetings will be convened.
If you believe that I am against public involvement than you may be even more misguided than I thought. I applaud all of your efforts to stop this development if that is what you truly want to do. Just know that there is always another side of the story, and a consequence that you may not know about.
As far as quoting Tn Code annotated, and reading off zonings...
You will find with this city that only now are they truly getting a grasp on what is in this city in terms of actual zoning, actual money on hand, etc. During the last few years there has been an "awakening" of sorts and it is going to take some time to get all of the other stuff cleaned up. If you have a map with an incorrect zoning, that does not make it law. The correct zoning will prevail regardless of what you find on a sheet of paper somewhere.
Good luck getting the city to downzone something that already has been sold and plans are being made to develop it. while we may not like it, someone paid an awful lot of money to own that land with a specific zoning for a specific purpose. Just because if bumps up to our piece of property does not give us FULL right to tell them how to manage their property (unless there are other circumstances involved).
You must find out what you can and can't live with and negotiate before this goes much further.
AND check you facts before you start quoting TN Code Annotated.
I don't appreciate your insults Mr. Glass. While I do not agree with your position I am not personally insulting you.
There is no need for the city to 'downzone' the property. The property owner forfeited their right to appeal the Master Land Use Plan when they did not petition the court against the approval of the master land use plan within 60 days of Dec. 4th 2006. TCA 6-58-105. I'll spare you the quote. Any attempt to place B4 development on that property will be in violation of state and municipal law. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't believe you are either so I won't prolong this discussion.
Cheers to you on a great blog. Jeers for the insults.
Jerrold,
Chapter 58 is the Urban Growth Boundary policy for Counties and Municipalities. The Urban Growth Boundary (aka The Growth Plan) defines how and where cities can annex land in the county, not land use zoning issues.
Look to 13-4-201 for Planning Commission authority regarding adopting a General Plan. It's so broad that you would have a tough time convincing someone that the General Plan should supervent a B4 Ordinance passed by the Legislative body.
Gorilla,
From the last comment I read in response to Jerold, are you saying that Jerold is incorrectly reading the codes? Is the zoning map he is using outdated or incorrect?
Mr. "B"
Jerrold is reading a code in relation to the urban growth boundary and understanding the law incorrectly. He is also referring to a zoning map that is innacurate. This property was rezoned in '99 from AG to B-4. It has never been R-2 at any time (to my knowledge anyway). Go check out Ordinance 99-45 on the city website and you will see the rezone right there.
The purpose of a growth plan is to direct the coordinated, efficient, and orderly development of the local government and its environs that will, based on an analysis of present and future needs, best promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. A growth plan may address land-use, transportation, public infrastructure, housing, and economic development.
http://springhilltn.org/PDF/City%20of%20Spring%20Hill%20Land%20Use%20Plan%2012-04-2006.pdf
This master land use plan was adopted last December. It is not 'out of date,' 'old,' or otherwise inaccurate. It may conflict with existing zoning ordinances specifically 99-45 however by adopting this plan the city effectively rezoned the property.
the land use plan was created by the planning commission, it never was adopted by the BOMA, nor did it need to be.
Gorilla,
Thanks for pointing me to the ordinance where the zone was changed from AG to B-4. I looked at the zoning map on the cities website dated March 2006 and it is showing this area is zoned R-2. This appears to be different from the 1999 ordinance that showed it to be B-4. Any ideas why the two are different?
Mr. "B"
The city has not really kept accurate records of any of this stuff until now. I would say only in the last few years has this all been actively pursued and figured out. There still may be a few things on the zoning map that are incorrect, but recently they went through all of the ordinances and came up with as current a zoning map as possible. If you want to, go to city hall and ask for the Aug. '07 zoning map. It is the most current and most accurate.
The city went through all of the ordinances in March of 2007 and updated the zoning map based on actual ordinances. This property is shown as B4 on that map (on the conference-room wall).
The Gorilla is correct, the latest map revision was done in August and is in the City Administrator's Office.
13-4-202. Adoption of plan — Manner. —
The commission may adopt the plan as a whole by a single resolution, or, as the work of making the whole plan progresses, may from time to time adopt a part or parts thereof, any such part to correspond generally with one (1) or more of the functional subdivisions of the subject matter of the plan. The adoption of the plan or any part, amendment or addition shall be by resolution carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of all the members of the commission. The resolution shall refer expressly to the maps, descriptive matter and other matters intended by the commission to form the whole or part of the plan, and the action taken shall be recorded on the adopted plan or part thereof and descriptive matter by the identifying signature of the secretary of the commission, and a copy of the plan or part thereof shall be certified to the chief legislative body.
[Acts 1935, ch. 34, § 4; C. Supp. 1950, § 3493.4; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 13-504.]
Jerrold and others,
I am here to correct you and really wanted to do so last night to keep you from sounding like you didn't have your information straight. You are badly mistaken on your interpretation of the various documents. See below...
1) The Future Land Use Plan that you refer to being adopted in 2006 has practically nothing to do with the Urban Growth Boundary (Chapter 1101) plan that you were reading from regarding state law. The Future Land Use Plan is nothing more than a plan to help guide land use decisions such as when and where to rezone properties. This has no "legal" standing and is merely a tool for the Planning Commission and BOMA to utilize in the decision making process. Basically, this is the plan that says what they think the future land use SHOULD be for a given area.
Also, while the Future Land Use Plan refers to specific zoning classifications, it is NOT the zoning ordinance and it's maps are NOT considered the official zoning for the land. These are merely recommendations for land uses. This is where the City's land use plan is deficient in my opinion.
2) The Zoning ordinance is the ONLY legally binding document other than the UGB which I'll discuss in a second. This is because whatever happens with the land in question, it MUST be an approved use in the zoning classification that it has (in this case it is B-4).
3) The Chapter 1101 Urban Growth Plan (aka Urban Growth Boundary) is legally binding, but only in the sense that this establishes the limits in which the city can annex land. As long as a piece of land is within the UGB, the city can annex it and that is all that really comes out of this plan. It has nothing to do with zoning or the Future Land Use Plan.
Finally, I hate to say it, but I agree with the Gorilla on this one, you all would have been better off allowing this to go through as a PUD which would have given you a much nicer development because the PC and BOMA can ask the developer to do things that they couldn't otherwise ask for. The reason is that now the developer can and likely will come to the Planning Commission with anything that fits under the B-4 Zone which to be quite honest could be just about anything imaginable in terms of full blown commercial development.
Finally, you really should have spoken to the City Planning Staff or an alderman that knows his stuff (such as Duda) before taking on this fight, you would have been much more informed going into this and very likely would've ended up with a better product. I for one, have found them (planning staff)very helpful in educating me on planning related issues.
Best of luck!
For the record I did consult my aldermen and planning commission members. I happen to disagree with some of their positions and some of the postings here.
Well there's no arguing with public opinion, so I'll leave this board in peace.
That's OK Jerrold, I have gotten stuck in Tennessee Code many times myself :)
This is the very place to argue public opinion. I do not think anyone on here is denegrating you, just trying to help you navigate this problem a little bit better. Congrats with the work that you have all done so far, but if you will take some of the advice presented on this board it should help your ability to present a good case to whatever group you run across in the future. Don't just give up, but learn.
Anonymous @ 20:32,
Great information! What is your thought on a zoning map from last year showing the property as R2, an Ordinance in 1999 that conflicts with it, and a new zoning map that shows the 1999 ordinance?
I guess that's what Jerrold's main issue is... What is your opinion of the zoning of the property???
Anonymous 20:32 - Are you Duda?
The property is zoned B-4. The property has only been zoned Ag and B-4 so the R-2 information is inaccurate.
The most accurate map (based on a review of all ordinances passed in SH history) is the map from Aug. '07.
Any map that you see prior to about March is incorrect.
99-45 zones tax Map 167, Parcel 2, Tract 1 from Ag ro B4.
03-11 rezones tax Map 167, Parcel 2, Tract 1 from B4 to R2
04-30 rezones Tax Map 167, Parcel 2, Tract 1 from Ag to B4.
It seems that there may be more than one conflict with zoning here. Anyone care to wade through the sale and subsequent subdivision of 100+ acres over the course of the last 7 years? It may not be as cut and dry as some might think.
Wow--LOVE the "Dospringhill.com" website. Great place to post some truth. Let's continue this discussion there.
GORILLA, WHERE ARE YOU? WHY NO POSTS? THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF ISSUES TO DISCUSS AROUND HERE.
Post a Comment