When greed, poor planning, and politics are combined this type of disaster results.
Please help by calling or writing the government and public agencies on our
What You Can Do page.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Respondent Harmony Property Group, LLC, applied to the Blount County Planning Commission for approval of an 80-lot subdivision proposed for 283 acres of mostly steep ridges and hillsides on Chilhowee Mountain overlooking Happy Valley, Tennessee. The property is along the southwest side of Chilhowee Mountain, which is a thirty-mile long ridge facing the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the southwest. It is adjacent to National Park Service property for the Foothills Parkway, in the watershed of Abrams Creek, which flows through part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and in the viewshed from ridges along the eastern part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Happy Valley is a rural mountain valley lying between Chilhowee Mountain and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

2. On May 25, 2006, and June 22, 2006, pursuant to the Blount County Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission considered an application for approval of a subdivision plat for an 80-lot subdivision called The Overlook at Montvale submitted by the applicant Harmony Property Group. Members of Petitioner participated in those meetings and were permitted to present brief oral comments and submit written materials for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision plat in those two meetings.

3. The record of those decisions consists of minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, the application for subdivision plat approval, the staff report of the Planning Commission staff, written materials submitted by Petitioner, and audio recordings of the meetings.

4. The approval of the subdivision plat by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious, because it violated Section 7.3 of the Blount County Zoning Regulations by approving the subdivision plat without prior approval of the Planned Unit Development.

5. The approval of a Planned Unit Development required by Article 7, Section 7.3 of the Blount County Zoning requires the same approval as an amendment to the zoning map under Article 12 of the Zoning Regulations. The subdivision plat approval for Overlook was premature, because no such approval of the Planned Unit Development had taken place.

6. Under the Blount County Subdivision Regulations, the approval of a preliminary plat for a subdivision authorizes the developer, with other permit approvals, to begin site grading and construction of roads and other infrastructure for the subdivision. The final plat approval occurs after the roads and other infrastructure are completed.

7. The approval by the Planning Commission of the Overlook subdivision was a preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision, pursuant to Sections 4.2(2), 4.3, 4.4, and 4.7(1) of the Subdivision Regulations. The requirements for the application for preliminary plat approval are contained in Section 5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations.

8. One set of requirements for approval of a major subdivision plat under Section 5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations is the requirement for developers of subdivisions of forty-nine or more lots to submit an Impact Assessment (See Section 5.1(5)). The Impact Assessment is required to “address the probable effects of the development” in fifteen key subject areas, including increases in traffic, changes in existing surface drainage, increased consumption of ground water, pollution of air or water, land erosion, sedimentation, or loss of tree cover, disturbance of other aspects of the natural ecology, and harmony with the character of surroundings. The approval of the subdivision plat by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious, because the Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant was a cursory two-page document, containing only conclusory statements with no data and analysis and failing to address all of the areas required by the regulation.

9. Section 6.6 of the Blount County Subdivision Regulations requires that no plat of land shall be approved for a subdivision that does not conform to the applicable zoning regulations. The subject property is in an R-2 Zoning District under Article 9, Section 9.3 of the Blount County Zoning Regulations. This District is for low density residential uses, and minimum lot size is five acres. The approval of the subdivision plat by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious, because the Planning Commission plat contains more lots than are permitted in an R-2 zoning district under the Blount County Zoning Ordinance.

10. Under the Blount County Subdivision Regulations, the application requires sufficient information to determine whether slopes on the property are unsuitable for development. For instance, property having an average slope of greater than 15% is subject to Special Development Standards for Hillside Subdivisions, found in Appendix I of the Subdivision Regulations. These Standards designate lands with a slope greater than 40% as unsuitable for development. The approval of the subdivision plat by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious because the topographical map and other information submitted with it should have determined whether the average slope is greater than 15% and should have contained a “slope analysis showing land categorized into slopes of 0-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-40%, and greater than 40%.” See Appendix I.2.

11. Under Appendix IV of the Blount County Subdivision Regulations, Planned Unit Developments require an additional procedure for preliminary master plan approval and require additional information to be submitted beyond that required for subdivision plat approval. The approval of the subdivision plat by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and capricious, because the application and supporting material did not contain information required for preliminary master plan approval for a Planned Unit Development.

12. The Tennessee Growth Planning Act at Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-106(c)(1) requires that counties:
(C) Identify territory that, over the next twenty (20) years, is to be preserved as agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, wildlife management areas or for uses other than high density commercial, industrial or residential development; and (D) Reflect the county’s duty to manage growth and natural resources in a manner that reasonably minimizes detrimental impact to agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas and wildlife management areas.

13. Blount County has designated as rural the property where the Overlook subdivision is proposed for development. The Planning Commission’s approval of an 80-lot gated subdivision in this area is inconsistent with the Growth Planning Act, because it fails to preserve the lands as rural and fails to reflect the county’s duty to manage growth and natural resources in a manner that reasonably minimizes detrimental impacts to agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas and wildlife management areas.

14. Upon information and belief, Respondent Harmony Property Group, LLC, has received necessary approvals from state and federal agencies for construction of roads and stream crossings for the subdivision and intends to begin construction soon. Such construction will involve grading and land clearing and will likely cause erosion and sedimentation and impact streams which flow into Happy Valley and into Abrams Creek and into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This construction will have a direct and substantial impact upon the interests of the Petitioner and its members. If the Writ of Supersedeas is not issued preserving the status quo while this matter is being heard, Petitioner and its members will suffer irreparable harm.

CLAIMS
15. The approval of the subdivision plat for the Overlook subdivision by the Blount County Planning Commission was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of the discretion vested in the Planning Commission.

16. The approval of the subdivision plat for the Overlook subdivision by the Blount County Planning Commission was based upon improper procedure and exceeded the authority of the Planning Commission.