What happened at the Council meeting of 4/5/2017: An attempt to violate property rights fails, Gun shows at the fairground bill is dead.

If you don't know what is under discussion, council meetings are really boring, if you have an agenda and staff analysis, they are still boring but not quite as boring. To see my commentary on the Council agenda and access a copy of the Council agenda and the Council agenda staff analysis follow this link.

I am only hitting the high points and I am ignoring most rezoning bills unless they are president setting or have an impact beyond one small area or are otherwise significant. About half of the meeting is taken up by public hearings on zoning bills.

BILL NO. BL2016-155 on public hearing which would provide a means for an applicant for a rezoning, which now requires a Traffic Impact Study, to get a waiver from that requirement is deferred indefinitely.  It would eliminate the requirement for a Traffic Impact Study for any property within the inner loop.  This seemed like a reasonable bill to reduce the burden on developers and still provide safeguards for the public.

BILL NO. BL2016-171  on public hearing is a bill that would rezone one very small corner of a lot zoned CL

rezoning for proposed digital sign deferred indefinitely

(Commercial Limited, intended for retail, consumer service, financial, restaurant, and office uses) and rezone it Specific Plan (SP) for the sole purpose of allowing a digital sign. The rezoned portion would only be .05 acres. There is a strong sentiment among some neighborhood activist to not allow the proliferation of digital signs. This was disapproved by the planning commission and the sponsor defers indefinitely. That does not mean it cannot be brought back up, but since the Councilman moved to defer before having a public hearing, it would have to have a public hearing if placed back on the agenda. I am pleased with this outcome. If one site gets a digital sign, then in order to compete for attention other businesses will seek them.

BILL NO. BL2016-173  on public hearing is a proposed rezoning from an industrial zoning to a mixed use zoning for property in East Nashville in Councilman Scott Davis' district.  The residential portion would be affordable housing.  This is adopted and then deferred to the second meeting in May. Those concerned with affordable housing may want to pay closer attention to this bill. See the video at time stamp 41:18 - 53:17.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-76 is the resolution by Councilman Glover requesting the Metropolitan Board of Fair Commissioners to reinstate and continue to allow gun shows at the fairgrounds.  At the last meeting, at the request of the sponsor, it was deferred to this meeting. At this meeting the committee had moved to defer the bill indefinitely so the bill was deferred "by rule."

RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-172  which appropriates $3,347,400 split between different departments to provide money to those departments that was not originally in their budget is deferred "by rule" for one meeting, having received a one meeting referral recommendation from Budget and Finance.  In B&F there were quite a few questions from frustrated members of that committee about the continuing financial problems with the Farmers Market.

BILL NO. BL2016-139  on third reading, which  rezones a piece of property in a residential area from residential zoning to SP in order to allow a nursing home to be build on that location, passes.  There was considerable opposition to this when it was on public hearing (link). I am pleased to see Councilman Swope do the right thing and pass this bill which was approved by the planning commission. Nursing homes do not generate excess traffic and old people in wheelchairs do not commit a lot of home burglaries. I think the code should be amended and nursing homes should be a permitted use by right in any residential area. People should be able to keep their parents in homes in their part of town. We should remove the zoning obstacle to building nursing homes in residential areas. Shame on those people who oppose a nursing home being built in their community.

BILL NO. BL2016-140  on third reading would amend a previously approved PUD to require the developer to make various road improvements. Metro legal has said this is not enforceable and the bill is disapproved by the Planning Commission. This bill and the one below concern the same piece of property. In my view it is simply wrong to come in after a person has vested rights to development and then change the rules. By the time a developer gets final site plan approval he may have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested before he ever turns the first piece of earth. This is a proposed taking away of property rights. Since the bill was disapproved it would have had to get 28 votes to pass. It fails by a vote of 24 in favor, 9 opposed and 2 abstentions.To see the discussion of this bill and the one below see time stamp 1:16:19 - 1:48:04

BILL NO. BL2016-141  on third reading would amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) by reducing the number of units from  60 units to 30.  To take away from one what they could previously do with their property is "taking" their property. Expect when the owner is compensated and the taking is for a public purpose, I oppose these actions. This bill is disapproved by the Planing Commission, so would require 28 votes to pass. It fails by a vote 25 in favor, none opposed, 9 abstaining and 1 not voting.

BILL NO. BL2016-157  on third reading, which would make modest positive improvements to the Tax Increment Finance program passes. To learn more about this issue see this link.

BILL NO. BL2016-160 on third reading amends the distance requirements for a beer license. This is a reasonable bill. It says if a four lane road separates the establishment for which the permit is being sought and the entity which triggers a distance requirement, the distance requirement does not apply.  This passes.

BILL NO. BL2016-161   is on the agenda under Rule 24 to determine it the bill can be on the agenda next meeting to be acted upon.  The bill would mandates that the Fair Board keep dates available in their calendar to allow the gun shows to rent the facility at the fairground until such time as a court of law or the Tennessee Attorney General determines the Fair Board’s compliance with the Metropolitan Charter, state and/or federal legislation in regard to its actions banning gun shows.  Last council meeting there was a vote in committee to deffer this indefinitely so  "by rule" the bill was deferred last meeting. The sponsor can bring it back up but he is required to request in writing to the clerk that the bill be back on the agenda, then the bill is put on the agenda for a determination if it can be heard. That is what is before the council.This is the vote to determine if the Council will allow it to be on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting. This is not a vote on the merits of the bill, only if the Council will hear the bill. The vote to allow the bill to be on the agenda failed by a vote of 7 yes, 26 no, 2 abstention and 2 not voting To see the discussion see time stamp 1:55:0 -2:03:13.

Top Stories