Should appointed officials vote on amendments that their organization lobbies for? That’s the question on the minds of Hamilton County residents concerned for the future of development in their areas.
Concerned citizens packed the Hamilton County courthouse for the May 12 special evening Planning Commission meeting on Plan Hamilton.
If you've never heard of Plan Hamilton, it's the new land use plan for Unincorporated Hamilton County, anywhere outside of city limits. It consists of five new area plans that dictate where and what type of future development can occur. For instance, if a plan says apartments or large commercial buildings can be built on a specific property, residents may have little, if any, recourse.
In other words, in a county already plagued by urban sprawl and overdevelopment of rural areas, the current plan must be the “right one” for residents. But as you can imagine, certain parties feel differently than area residents.
Some of these parties voiced their agenda at the meeting. One of the speakers, Julian Bell, asked for amendments to the plans on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Greater Chattanooga and the Greater Chattanooga Realtors.
A representative of the Greater Chattanooga Realtors also spoke, adding that the governmental affairs committee and the executive committee of the board of directors approved the amendments. As an extra note, two of the planning commissioners are on the executive committee of the Home Builders Association.
Only a few amendments were shared during the meeting. These amendments were not provided to the public prior to the meeting. In contrast, all five area plans were on the Plan Hamilton website for public review.
One amendment seeks to change the density allowed in all five area plans for the Countryside Residential Place Type, which is equivalent to the A-1 zone (two homes per acre). The amendment would allow three per acre if the development will use public sewers or a decentralized sewer system.
In a nutshell, this plan amendment could bypass A1 zoning - the current zoning for most of Unincorporated Hamilton County. So, anywhere with a current max density of two per acre could be changed to three per acre.
A development on a rural road, that would normally only be allowed to have 200 homes, could balloon into a 300 home development.
Another amendment would allow plan changes every month, which is no different than the current process. Residents would still have to take time off work to attend monthly meetings and sacrifice valuable vacation time 12 days a year.
Without even disclosing the full content of these proposed amendments to the public, the Planning Commission recommended them to the County Commission.
Now, here comes the whole point of this article. Is it a conflict of interest if Planning Commissioners or the companies they receive money from are members of the two organizations that submitted these amendments?
There are several definitions of conflict of interest, depending on the resource you consult. One example is, a situation where a person, in their official capacity, can gain personal benefits from their decisions. Another is when a secondary interest influences an official decision.
Planning Commission bylaws clearly state that Commission members should recuse themselves from voting and avoid speaking to any issue before the Commission when there is a conflict of interest unless specifically questioned by another member of the Commission.
According to the bylaws, Planning Commission members may not use or attempt to use official positions for personal financial gain or attempt to secure special privileges and/or exemptions for themselves or others.
They should not vote on matters in which they knowingly would or could profit financially, differently than the general public.
Planning Commission members also may not lobby any Board, official, or employee of Hamilton County served by the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning commissioner.
Isn't it considered lobbying for these organizations to ask for amendments to the area plans?
Planning commissioners are also supposed to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning issues to citizens and governmental decision-makers.
The public had no knowledge of these amendments prior to the meeting and only received information about a few amendments during the meeting. Only after the meeting did the public find out what was in the five-page list of amendments. So, it appears that this bylaw was not followed.
If a Planning commissioner or any company they receive money from is a member of the Home Builders Association of Greater Chattanooga or the Greater Chattanooga Realtors, should they have recused themselves from voting on the amendments presented on behalf of those organizations?
Please contact the county commissioners and let them know your opinion on this subject.
Anita Willerson