Land Use Plan review by FMPC
Farragut Municipal Planning Commission again discussed the Town’s Land Use Plan Map associated with the Kingston Pike/Smith Road/Boring Road study area during FMPC’s meeting Thursday, Aug. 18.
Doug Horne, a long-time resident who owns property in the studies area, said, “We totally disagree with any changes in the Land Use Plan.” (Horne also is owner of Republic Newspapers, Inc., parent company of farragutpress).
“The Town has had medium density residential on the Land Use Plan since 2012, 6-to-12 units per acre. It was adjusted to 6-to-8 units per acre medium density in 2018. There is no need for a change again — it reduces the value of the land dramatically,” he added.
Other members of the Horne family were at the meeting with their attorney, and made it clear they would file a lawsuit if the Land Use Plan was changed again.
Regarding his property at Boring Road, Horne said, “We are an older Farragut family and have been here many years in Farragut, and I will have to file legal action against the Town and the officials in the Town if you change the Land Use Plan again. We have to protect our interest.”
“If you cut this Land Use Plan to half, it cuts our value down a few million dollars on this property,” he added.
However, Horne also noted, “A lot of people (living along) Boring Road would like the Horne land to be rural residential.”
“I see the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as more of a plan,” FMPC chair Rita Holladay said. “It’s not zoning. Zoning comes along when the property is sold or somebody wants to develop it. ... I see it more as a guide.”
“That’s really what it is; it’s a vision,” Community Development director Mark Shipley said.
However, “Let me remind everyone that in December 2012, our property — we have 50 acres — was classified 6-to-12 units per acre, medium density,” Horne said. “In 2018, it was arbitrarily changed to 6-to-8 units per acre.
“That’s what it is now. That’s what we have to keep,” he added. “As you Commissioners know, the Land Use Plan has a lot to do with the value of the property. You can’t re-zone property unless you really adhere to the Land Use Plan.
“Sure you say it’s a guide, but look at the Eddy Ford property. The Land Use Plan was changed; we came in with a development plan on Eddy Ford’s property, and it was killed because the Land Use Plan (text) was changed.”
Horne added he is “Planning to request a re-zoning of that property, zoned R-1, because the Land Use Plan was 6-to-8 units per acre ... and we also have an assisted living development that’s going to come in there.”
He also pointed out, “We even offered to widen Boring Road at our expense, and that’s probably $1.5 million to widen Boring Road and curb and gutter it, but we would have to keep the Land Use Plan (classification). When you change the Land Use Plan, it kills your monetary value, which hurts your family.
“So, we can’t agree the Land Use Plan be changed. You can’t have a few people make comments at the workshops and then, all of a sudden, everybody changes the Land Use Plan.”
Reactions came about after Shipley described the map’s potential changes for 10 properties in that area.
“This is dealing with our latest study, or priority area,” he said. “It’s kind of in the central part of Town. ... Like other areas we’ve looked at in the past few years, we engaged the community that’s living in this area or nearby.
“We’ve tried to assess whether the vision that was mapped in 2012, when we actually mapped our vision as part of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is current, or there are things that need to be revisited,” Shipley added. “We had three public workshops that were all very well-attended.
“This study area is a little bit different than the other two (areas) ... there’s a lot of diversity in this area. You go from a very commercialized to a very rural part of Town.”
In 2012, “We were looking at this area, as there were some existing residential communities there,” Shipley said.
“The (former) Ingles (location), at the time, was in very poor condition, and the expectation was that it would probably be demolished, and this would be a good location for a mixed-use neighborhood, so a lot ·of the area along Kingston Pike, even to where NHC is, was mapped in the pink, which is mixed-use neighborhood,” he added.
“To try to map out land uses that would provide for potential residential densities that could support mixed-use neighborhoods, some of the peripheral areas were mapped as medium-density residential.”
However, since the original map was made, “the area changed, as the former Ingles building was renovated, not demolished, so the idea for the mixed-use town center kind of went away for a mixed-use neighborhood,” Shipley said.
Additionally, the Community Developement director pointed to some of Town’s higher-density multi-family residential areas, such as a development north of the Interstate, another under construction at South Watt Road, Ivy Farms townhouses and the Biddle Farm Town Center development project.
“All those things, collectively, helped to address the need for additional housing choices,” he said. “It kind of becomes apparent, looking at the map, that we need to acknowledge the changing conditions ... maybe, acknowledge where our existing developments that aren’t mapped in accordance with how they actually are in the field.”
Other views
Meanwhile, resident Jon Holztrager said he wanted the land use R-1 and R-2 classifications in the study areas to stay as they are, and Paul Johnson said he wanted the area classified more rural.
“When we bought our house in Baldwin Park, we were unaware that the adjacent land was medium density potential,” Johnson said.
“We established our home there; we are happy there, and we don’t want a huge, dense development right next to our subdivision,” he added. “… Everyone I know of in that part of Town wants it to be lower density, not medium-density residential.”
“It would make sense as rural residential, certainly,” said Vice Mayor Louise Povlin, who also is a commissioner.
