![]() |
Emily Evans |
by Emily Evans
Rod is right. Planning and zoning issues can be pretty dull.
The language of setbacks, variances, accessory uses and bulk regulations can
turn the most interesting person into a dullard.
Planning and zoning is also uniquely local in character. Each
county or region emphasizes what is important to them. In Williamson County,
historic zoning, which has turned into the goose that laid the golden tourist
egg, is pretty important. In Knox County they seem to work hard to protect their
sweeping views of the majestic Smokey
Mountains. In Davidson County, our zoning regulations reflect
the urban hipness that comes with being a center of culture and learning.
The introduction of HB3694, HB3696, HB 3698 and HB1345 which
have been promoted by the Nashville Chamber of Commerce serve as a radical
departure from the legislative scheme that is the state zoning law. For the
most part the zoning law in the Tennessee Code Annotated is permissive. It
tells us we can zone land for different uses. It tells us we need to have a plan
around which we make zoning decisions to avoid arbitrary decisions. It tells us
to have a process for appeal. The law refrains from a specific list of do’s and
don’ts for the simple reason that what is a “do” in Davidson County
might not fly in Williamson.
Take the zoning ordinance that applies to signs, for
example. In Nashville,
we are pretty permissive. We have LED billboards, tri-face billboards, and
regular billboards. We have on site signs and off site signs. We have big tall
signs, low monument signs and some in between. In Williamson County,
they have monument signs and not too many of those. Why the difference? Williamson Countians
decided a long time ago they didn’t like all our signs. So, they passed a law
that limited them. Davidson
County came to a
different conclusion. Has it made a difference in how prosperous each of those
two counties are? Clearly not.
If the Tennessee General Assembly gets its way Williamson County
and Davidson County will have to comply with the same
sign law even though there is clear evidence we don’t want or need the same
rules.
There are other aspects about these bills that fly in the
face of fairness and good government. One of the bills sets rules for
properties whose use is not the same as its zoning. The jargon for that
situation is “legally non-conforming use.” But is has another set of rules if
you happen to be the owner of a car lot.
I guess car dealers let their Chamber membership expire. In another
bill, there is a set of rules for what regulations would apply when you develop
land unless you happen to work in Pigeon Forge. The General Assembly is picking
winners and losers in the real estate development business.
Please support your Metro Council and pretty much every
other legislative body in the State of Tennessee
and ask your State Representatives to vote “no” on HB3694, HB 3696, HB3698 and
HB1345.
Emily Evans is a Member of the Metro Council representing District 23. I appreciate her contribution to this discussion. Opinions expresses in a guest editorial are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of A Disgruntled Republican.
Top Stories
No comments:
Post a Comment