Is this the unanimous view of the MPC commissioners? If not, any idea who voted for and against? Is there somewhere on the web sites where the public can see who on MPC, CC etc. voted for and against all items they vote on?

The MPC minutes are on the MPC website, although the December ones aren't there yet (and they should be). (link...)

Instead of contacting the county neighborhood groups or the affected homeowners directly about a meeting as they were asked to do by County Commission at it's Nov. 17th meeting, MPC staff chose to announce this public input meeting only through a notice in the newspaper, which I didn't see. Evidently they didn't think highly enough of it to put it on their own calendar either.

I can't attend the meeting because of prior commitments, but I have emailed my concerns to both MPC and County Commissioners.

The proposed ordinance change, which would allow Use on Review to permit landscaping businesses to operate on land that is zoned AG, is a really bad idea. There are already multiple homeowners who are being severely impacted by landscape companies who have been operating illegally on AG land.

As you can see from the staff report, MPC staff is recommending changes that would allow landscape companies to operate 7 days a week and does not limit the number or types of equipment that can be permitted in the ordinance, relying instead on the Use on Review process to decide what is appropriate. A big chunk of the county is zoned AG, especially the county's rural residential areas, so this is a real problem.

Maybe it's time to differentiate between residential and non-residential AG uses and create appropriate zones for each. There are certainly some permitted uses under the current AG zone that are almost as bad as landscape companies, so I would be in favor of revisiting this whole AG zoning concept. Since this is an issue that has the potential to affect thousands of homeowners, it should be an inclusive and open process, deserving of a taskforce or workgroup to throughly study the AG zone and recommend any changes if needed.

And jbr, I don't know of any place where votes are recorded except maybe in meeting minutes?

Ok, I'm confused. Did MPC just decide to propose this zoning change? Or did BZA ask them to look into it? What's the history and context?

Thanks.

Yes, this was the BZA's (specifically Lumpy's) doings. A landscape business couldn't get the agriculturally zoned property they have been illegally operating on for several years rezoned to commercial, so the BZA is trying to get the MPC to change the law for them.

One of the remnants of the old mechanism, BZA,

(link...)

still trying to work their old time magic.

Maybe Knox County should remove this line from their web page

"The Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals is comprised of nine members of the County Commission."

Could any ruling by BZA be voided because of non-eligible members?