Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Lot Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Wilson County commissioners to reopen debate after planning process errors in proposed lot-size reduction
Summary
A resident told the county commission that procedural errors and limited advocacy at planning hearings mean commissioners should resume debate before voting on a countywide lot-size reduction proposal.
Ken Young, a resident of Shop Springs Road, told the Wilson County Board of Commissioners that procedural irregularities surrounding a proposed countywide reduction in lot size require the commission to reopen debate before taking action.
Young said the Planning and Zoning Committee discussed the change in a February meeting for “a hundred and 80 seconds” without posting it on the agenda, and he said the planning office later created an application for a Planning Commission hearing. He told commissioners the Planning Commission voted 7–2 to defeat the reduction on March 21, but the planning office later reported incorrectly that the Planning Commission provided no guidance.
"Since this started, there has only been 1 person who has ever given testimony in favor of reducing lot size," Young said. "By definition, wouldn't that be the actual applicant? This is a countywide ordinance. There are many other stakeholders, including 3 water districts and many other infrastructure providers who will be affected."
Young asked the commission to determine who initiated the application and why the water authority was the only party to present evidence of need at the Planning Commission hearing. He also asked why the Planning and Zoning Committee did not rescind its recommendation after it discovered the planning office's reporting error.
Commissioners did not take action on Young's request during his public comment; he concluded by urging the body to "resume debate and let the voters hear where you stand on this." The transcript shows the item had been tabled at the previous commission meeting and that the planning process had produced conflicting reports, but no motion to reopen debate appears in the meeting record for May 19.
The commission's planning and zoning committee, the planning office, and the water authority were all mentioned as participants in the process; the transcript does not record a formal response from planning staff or a vote by the full commission to reopen the lot-size discussion during the May 19 meeting.
For now the matter remains in the record as a pending countywide ordinance issue that commission members and members of the public have asked to see debated further before any final action.
