|
Letters to The Editor Exciting book To the Editor, In
case you didn’t know yet, an exciting book relating to Holly Springs
has recently been published. The author is our own Margaret Delashmit,
who not too terribly long ago wrote beautiful articles in The South
Reporter about gardening and other topics. The South Reporter figures
in her book, “Thief.” Also in there is Phillips Grocery, a bicycle
shop, and many individuals that we might think we recognize, or at
least wonder about. It takes us back to the 1950s but the
struggle to gain acceptance portrayed in the books is very much alive
for many of us today. It’s one more of a growing number of fascinating
literary works set in our town. I believe they have copies at
booksellers of Laurelwood in Memphis as well as online at Barnes and
Noble and Amazon. The bookseller I refer to is the former Davis Kidd
Book Store. I believe Square Books in Oxford and Something To Read in Jackson, Tenn., has the book also. I just wanted to get the story out. The book came out at the end of August 2012. Norman Chapman Holly Springs Response to article Dear Editor, The
purpose of this letter is to respond to the article titled “OK of
mini-storage heats up boardroom” (Nov. 29, 2012) written by Sue Watson.
The reason I am compelled to write is to clearly define the issues and
my position regarding the proposal/legislative process. The issues are
as follows: • Use of a special exception to modify Residential
Estates property (RE) to Commercial (C2) bypassing C1 – The usage of
special exception historically has been to provide property owners with
either a hardship or duress (special circumstances) an exception to the
zoning rules and regulations. An example of a special exception
that stands on its merits is that I need to take care of my elderly
parent so I need an exception to zoning in order to move in a
double-wide trailer on my property. What is the underlying
hardship/duress for Drew Cothern’s request for a special exception to
modify his residential property to Commercial 2 and bypassing
Commercial 1 (C2 property is less restrictive regarding use and more
valuable than C1)? The motivation for the request is in order
for Drew Cothern to make money by operating a commercial enterprise for
his personal financial benefit at the expense of his relatives,
friends, and neighbors with adjoining property. Their quality of life
and property values would be adversely impacted by having a storage
unit facility on an adjoining property. Clearly this does not
stand on its merits and it makes no sense that Drew Cothern, who lives
out of state (he lives more than a four-hour drive away) and does not
reside in the community, would be granted an exception to the detriment
of the community for his own individual profit. • The actions by
the zoning board – at the initial zoning meeting the request was heard,
a final vote was taken, and the request was denied 4-0 with an
affirmative/final vote. Neighbors were notified in advance of the
meeting, both sides were completely heard, the vote was final, and the
issue was not tabled for further discussion or consideration. The
normal process when your request has been denied by zoning is that you
have the right to appeal the decision to the board of supervisors for
reconsideration. In this instance the exact same proposal was
appealed to the zoning board (appealed to themselves) because Drew
Cothern was upset by the rejection of the proposal with the first vote
by the zoning board. At the second zoning meeting no one was notified
that the vote previously taken was subject to be reversed. At the
second meeting, Drew Cothern (the applicant of the special exception)
was not present at the meeting and Chris Cothern Robinson (his mother,
who is vice president of the First State Bank, Mt. Pleasant branch)
spoke in support of the project. The project was re-voted on without
the applicant present, no one opposed was notified in writing, and the
project denial was reversed/approved 3-0. What is Chris’s motivation of
her support of this proposal? She does not own property in the
community so will the project benefit her financially on a personal
level or is there a possibility for First State Bank to loan the
business money so the bank can earn money on a loan? • Conway
Moore’s explanations – She stated that the second zoning vote was
required because the Cotherns were not thoroughly heard at the first
meeting. Why would they not have been thoroughly heard if Conway was in
charge of running the zoning meeting? In addition, Conway says that the
special exception is just for the applicant. With that said, if the
Cotherns need to sell the business at a future date the next owner will
not have an exception to operate a commercial business without the
consent of the zoning board. This makes absolutely no sense,
because how would the property revert back to RE after the storage
units are built? Would they have to be removed if the zoning board did
not grant the next owner the same status? If this is a possibility,
then no bank or individual in their right mind would loan this business
money because this exception to the zoning regulation is not
transferrable. The truth of the matter is that once the storage units
are built they are there to stay and the property will not revert back
to RE. • Impact on local commercial property values – RE property
sells for roughly $3,000 per acre and Commercial 2 property sells for
approximately $40,000 per acre. Instead of creating the strife with
friends and family in the community, why didn’t the Cotherns purchase
property that is already zoned commercial? It is because it is all
about money and they are doing it on the cheap. The county does
not owe the Cotherns a free pass to do as they please to the detriment
of the neighborhood. As the property was inherited family property, by
going this route, it saves them a significant amount of money at the
expense of their neighbors’ property values, not to mention that anyone
owning commercial property and having paid commercial property prices
has been harmed. Because of this ruling your property is not
worth commercial prices paid, because any property can be converted
with an application and a $30 fee. So, what the new owner of the gas
station (Jim Holloway) which is only C1 should have done was buy the
adjoining RE property, pay a $30 fee to have the property upgraded to
C2, build a brand new facility, and saved several hundred thousand
dollars. This ruling will have an adverse effect on commercial
property values and will actually hinder resale of established
enterprises. • A precedent is set – by approving an
out-of-state, non-resident, commercial special exemption request that
does not stand on its merits and is purely for the financial benefit of
one individual in spite of local opposition, how can the zoning board
deny any similar request going forward? Will the zoning board be able
to deny future similar requests and they are really putting themselves
and the county in a box by approving this measure. Not only does it not
stand on its merits but it sends a bad message about the way business
is conducted in Marshall County. If this approval is allowed to
stand and is condoned by the board of supervisors, then we really have
no need for zoning and both the zoning department/zoning board should
be eliminated to save the county money. In addition, as a voter and
county taxpayer we would need to seriously consider the direction the
county is heading and whether the leadership in place is up to the
tasks ahead. In conclusion, I am not against anyone wishing
to open a business, nor am I opposed to the building of storage units
as portrayed in the article. What I am opposed to is how the Cotherns
and the zoning board are going about it. I recommend that the board of
supervisors deny the special exception request and tell Drew Cothern
there are other means available to build storage units. The best way to
go about constructing a business is to purchase land that is already
zoned for that purpose and he should be encouraged to pursue his dream.
What the board of supervisors should not do is send this matter back to
the zoning board as this would be a cop-out. The zoning board
heard all parties at the first meeting, declined to table the issue,
and the proposal was unanimously rejected by a 4-0 final vote. The
board of supervisors needs to state its position regarding this matter
so all parties may obtain closure. Dan Gaw Red Banks Impressed Dear Editor, This
letter comes expressing my appreciation and acknowledging the
Management and Training Corporation who has taken over the operations
of the Marshall County Correctional Facility. I attended the
first community relations meeting and was really impressed with the
programs that are available to the offenders housed at the facility.
The offenders are offered the following classes: GED, computer, life
skills, horticulture, culinary arts, literacy, alcohol and drugs, long
and short term. They are also assigned to various jobs in the different
areas within the facility. Therefore, offenders have opportunities to
be rehabilitated as well as learn skills in order to return to society
and be successful. The operational staff that worked during the transition were located next to my restaurant. I
found them to be very professional and cordial. Also, my hat’s off to
the MCCF staff for their efforts, concerns, patience and caring for the
welfare of the offenders and the community. Respectively yours, Annie Moffitt Lucas, proprietor Annie’s Restaurant
|