Photo Caption: Jimmy Grant argues his case to the Planning Commission - Photo By Sid Riley/Times
At Tuesday evening’s Planning Commission meeting, conflicts, contradictions, and confusing code contents created controversy.
Initially on the agenda, a contingent of Compass Lake property owners were in attendance to present their opposition to a proposed plan for construction of additional condominium units near the public boat ramp for the lake. The main arguments they presented related to the lack of adequate parking at the existing ramp, and the fact that this new development would add to that troublesome problem. Six units of the project have already been built, and additional buildings and units are proposed.
After hearing the arguments, Commission Chairman Mack Glass stated the developers had complied with all requirements. The project was approved by the Planning Commission and was referred to the County Commissioners for final approval.
Then the main event began.
James Grant, local builder-developer presented a development for final approval after approximately eighteen months of continuing conflict with the Jackson County Planning Department. The proposed development is very small, comprising a four lot project located adjacent to Highway 71, near Sunland.
It seems the core issue presented by Mr. Grant is the fact that the project complies with the definition of "Private Subdivision" as frequently described in the county comprehensive plan and various supporting state statutes. These codes which form the basis of the enforcement activities of the planning department define four types of subdivisions; Major, Minor, Impact, and Private.
The "Private" designation applies to subdivisions designated by the developer as private, meaning no government services or road involvement is present. Projects meeting this criteria are specifically exempt from the roadway requirements defined for the other three classifications of subdivisions.
However, the Commissioners claim that historically the county has only recognized two types of subdivisions, "Major" and "Minor". A "Minor" subdivision must abut an existing county or state road right of way, with direct access for each lot from that right of way. Otherwise, if an entrance road is involved, it is automatically classified as a "Major" Subdivision.
In this instance Mr. Grant obtained an easement and constructed an entrance driveway with a 30 foot right of way. Also in this easement he laid a state licensed, county health department approved, water line from the state right of way to provide water to the lots.
The situation was further confused at the meeting when County Attorney Frank Baker stated that in his opinion a subdivision could be "Private-Major" and "Private-Minor" depending on the presence of a need for government services. Grant later refuted this approach by again citing codes that clearly defined the four classes of subdivisions and the specific exemptions for the small, "Private" subdivisions.
The discussion raged for approximately two hours. Other issues such as the need for engineering review and payment of a new $1000 fee for county engineering, and whether the application entered by Mr. Grant in October, 2007 was a preliminary application or a final approval application were discussed in detail. Mr. Grant argued that since the state had issued a license for the water installation after the required drawings were done for them, no further engineering was required, thus negating the involvement of county Engineer Alvarez, and the payment of the fee. Also, since there was no additional site preparation involved, the application was for final approval. He provided earlier correspondence from Mrs. Joan Scharer, Director of Community Planning which used the term "final approval application".
If the application was submitted as a "final approval" application and not a "preliminary application", then the ordinances clearly state that if the application is not submitted to the Planning Commission and some determination made within a sixty day period, then the application is automatically approved. It is Mr. Grant’s contention that this sixty day rule applies in this instance.
The real emotions surfaced when Mr. Grant stated that in his opinion the actions of Mrs. Scharer and the Planning Department constituted harassment against him and his project.
"The actions of the Planning Department in processing this application demonstrate a high degree of personal prejudice against me, or else a high level of incompetence. In either instance, the net result has been the same", states Grant.
At another point during the meeting verbal arguments rose to a high pitch as Mr. Grant and Commissioner Janice Poller faced off. Commissioner Poller stated she felt Mr. Grant had attempted to circumvent their authority and normal procedures. Grant countered with the argument that the prescribed procedures for Major and Minor developments did not apply to this type of "private" development. On several occasions Chairman Glass had to use his gavel to suppress accelerating arguments.
Finally it all progressed to a vote. Commissioner Janet Brown read the Mission Statement for the Commission, which states that the purpose is to provide and promote orderly growth in the county, with logical, flexible and fair administration of rules.
Commissioners Cresh Harrison and Janet Brown voted in favor of approval, Janice Poller quickly cast a "no" vote, and after much personal deliberation Commissioner John McCaffery voted "no", with Chairman Glass then casting the deciding vote of "no".
It should be mentioned that Jimmy Grant was previously the Chief Building Inspector for the county, and a previous member of the Planning Commission. In fact, he set up and started the controversial Building Inspection function for Jackson County in 1975.
Initially on the agenda, a contingent of Compass Lake property owners were in attendance to present their opposition to a proposed plan for construction of additional condominium units near the public boat ramp for the lake. The main arguments they presented related to the lack of adequate parking at the existing ramp, and the fact that this new development would add to that troublesome problem. Six units of the project have already been built, and additional buildings and units are proposed.
After hearing the arguments, Commission Chairman Mack Glass stated the developers had complied with all requirements. The project was approved by the Planning Commission and was referred to the County Commissioners for final approval.
Then the main event began.
James Grant, local builder-developer presented a development for final approval after approximately eighteen months of continuing conflict with the Jackson County Planning Department. The proposed development is very small, comprising a four lot project located adjacent to Highway 71, near Sunland.
It seems the core issue presented by Mr. Grant is the fact that the project complies with the definition of "Private Subdivision" as frequently described in the county comprehensive plan and various supporting state statutes. These codes which form the basis of the enforcement activities of the planning department define four types of subdivisions; Major, Minor, Impact, and Private.
The "Private" designation applies to subdivisions designated by the developer as private, meaning no government services or road involvement is present. Projects meeting this criteria are specifically exempt from the roadway requirements defined for the other three classifications of subdivisions.
However, the Commissioners claim that historically the county has only recognized two types of subdivisions, "Major" and "Minor". A "Minor" subdivision must abut an existing county or state road right of way, with direct access for each lot from that right of way. Otherwise, if an entrance road is involved, it is automatically classified as a "Major" Subdivision.
In this instance Mr. Grant obtained an easement and constructed an entrance driveway with a 30 foot right of way. Also in this easement he laid a state licensed, county health department approved, water line from the state right of way to provide water to the lots.
The situation was further confused at the meeting when County Attorney Frank Baker stated that in his opinion a subdivision could be "Private-Major" and "Private-Minor" depending on the presence of a need for government services. Grant later refuted this approach by again citing codes that clearly defined the four classes of subdivisions and the specific exemptions for the small, "Private" subdivisions.
The discussion raged for approximately two hours. Other issues such as the need for engineering review and payment of a new $1000 fee for county engineering, and whether the application entered by Mr. Grant in October, 2007 was a preliminary application or a final approval application were discussed in detail. Mr. Grant argued that since the state had issued a license for the water installation after the required drawings were done for them, no further engineering was required, thus negating the involvement of county Engineer Alvarez, and the payment of the fee. Also, since there was no additional site preparation involved, the application was for final approval. He provided earlier correspondence from Mrs. Joan Scharer, Director of Community Planning which used the term "final approval application".
If the application was submitted as a "final approval" application and not a "preliminary application", then the ordinances clearly state that if the application is not submitted to the Planning Commission and some determination made within a sixty day period, then the application is automatically approved. It is Mr. Grant’s contention that this sixty day rule applies in this instance.
The real emotions surfaced when Mr. Grant stated that in his opinion the actions of Mrs. Scharer and the Planning Department constituted harassment against him and his project.
"The actions of the Planning Department in processing this application demonstrate a high degree of personal prejudice against me, or else a high level of incompetence. In either instance, the net result has been the same", states Grant.
At another point during the meeting verbal arguments rose to a high pitch as Mr. Grant and Commissioner Janice Poller faced off. Commissioner Poller stated she felt Mr. Grant had attempted to circumvent their authority and normal procedures. Grant countered with the argument that the prescribed procedures for Major and Minor developments did not apply to this type of "private" development. On several occasions Chairman Glass had to use his gavel to suppress accelerating arguments.
Finally it all progressed to a vote. Commissioner Janet Brown read the Mission Statement for the Commission, which states that the purpose is to provide and promote orderly growth in the county, with logical, flexible and fair administration of rules.
Commissioners Cresh Harrison and Janet Brown voted in favor of approval, Janice Poller quickly cast a "no" vote, and after much personal deliberation Commissioner John McCaffery voted "no", with Chairman Glass then casting the deciding vote of "no".
It should be mentioned that Jimmy Grant was previously the Chief Building Inspector for the county, and a previous member of the Planning Commission. In fact, he set up and started the controversial Building Inspection function for Jackson County in 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment