|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Development Review Board wraps with FBMA report
Leslie Tucker - Thu, Sep, 1, 2005
Farragut Mayor W. Edward Ford III spoke publicly for the first time about the Development Review Process Evaluation Committee — a task force he created in April following his re-election campaign when questions were raised regarding the status of the town’s business environment — during the Farragut Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting Aug. 25.
“The ball is now in the court of this Board of Mayor and Aldermen,” Ford said. “I think this has been an opportunity for people who have had deep concerns about the town and its development review process to approach it in a very objective and very, I would say, courteous manner.”
Vice Mayor Michael Hayes provided a brief report from the Committee and asked that the Committee’s findings be brought up for a vote at FMBA’s next meeting, Sept. 8.Ford appointed 10 members to the Committee, including active citizens such as Haynes, who chaired the group; Alderman Joel Garber; Farragut Municipal Planning Commission Chair Robert Hill and FMPC members Fred Jones and Bob Edlund; Personnel Committee members Ron Honken and Rita Holladay as well as development professionals Harold Cannon, Bob Markli and David Wooley.
In order to identify the areas of concern in the development review process, and to make recommendations, the group chose to conduct a survey, hear from town staff, meet privately with developers and look at how other municipalities work with businesses that wish to bring its company and its revenue to their town.
DRPEC meetings contained considerable discussion and debate up to and including its final meeting, Aug. 22.
When discussing what should be included in the final draft of the Committee’s report, Hill said he was concerned that including certain language would paint a misleading picture of the town.
He requested that the wording, “the town is ‘opposed’ to new development” be changed to “the town is ‘generally discouraging’ to new development.”
“That’s what people think regardless of whether it’s accurate,” Markli said.
“That sort of reflects to policy of opposition on the part of the town to development and that’s just simply not true,” Hill countered.
The Commission voted 5-4 in favor of changing the language.
Town engineer Darryl Smith addressed the DRPEC asking the town to consider reducing the number of FMPC meetings from two to one a month.
“[Developers and staff] could work a lot of things out before they even get to the Planning Commission,” Smith said.
The group chose not to make that recommendation but did suggest adding to the number of meetings requested in the review process.
“Having that required meeting, [the developers we spoke to] felt this would be an opportunity to speed up the process in the long run. . . . What we may lose in time in the first meeting, we’re gonna gain tenfold back in the process,” Honken said.
The Commission also recommended that an additional meeting be held following the staff’s initial review prior to the project being brought to the FMPC. The Commission felt that this meeting would help to answer developers’ questions and resolve issues informally.
It recommended a follow up quality survey be conducted to provide applicants an opportunity to rate the services provided by the staff. It addressed town staffing and recommended a new position be created to oversee the community development, engineering and codes and enforcement staff, to fill present vacancies on the engineering staff and to consider adding one full-time engineer and/or utilize contract engineering services when needed.
“I really don’t sense that there’s ever been a really good estimate made of the manpower required,” Hill said. “Until you know how much work you have … It’s hard to staff a function to do the work.”
Garber added, “There may need to be an entire reorganization of the town.”
“The telling thing to me, with respect to the town . . . that is the failure of the town management to keep the process flowing, conflict resolution. We’re not singling out anyone,” Cannon said. “The management is where we need some shoring up.”
Additional recommendations include customer service training for town staff, updating the town Web site, consolidating ordinances and statutes related to development into one document, educational seminars about the process and naming a “project contact” to major development project.
“One of the things that this person would do is to ensure that the projects that he’s responsible for aren’t totally forgotten by the town’s bureaucracy,” Hill said.
Markli said he had spoken to several developers personally; some who said town staff caused fear, loathing and derision throughout the process.
“Those are not my words,” Markli added.
He also questioned the town’s land use policy; the current Urban Growth Boundary Report on the town’s Web site was adopted by the FBMA in 1999.
“If we want banks, churches, restaurants and drug stores, if that’s all we want, then that’s what we need to say,” Markli said. “If we want other things, then we need to make it so that the people who want to bring those other things in can find a friendly, helpful, competent staff that will help them through the process . . . .”
Wooley suggested the town “review the guidelines, reset the standards that are required for each zoning category and uses within those zoning categories and if someone comes in and they meet the zoning and they meet the uses, there’s no reason why they can’t develop that property within the guidelines.”
Jones suggested that the town consider allowing concept plans when there are major site issues present.
Haynes spoke to concerns for a formal appeals process.
“If [developers and staff] have a face-to-face and then there’s still an issue, I think [developers] should have the opportunity to present to the M-P-C, who’s gonna make that decision, their written views just like the staff has that opportunity,” he said.
|
|
|
