archive-edu.com » EDU » T » TENNESSEE.EDU

Total: 795

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Knowledgebase-Amending a Private Act Charter
    resolution The resolution should pass by a two thirds majority because this same vote will be required to enact the private act change 2 Upon passage of the resolution the municipality contacts their legislator who sends the resolution to Legislative Services to be put in the correct bill form 3 The private act amending the charter is passed and returned to the municipality for local approval by either a vote

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/a44a1b5bd87bb8c785256bfe00694dbb?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Knowledgebase-Amending an Agenda During a Meeting to Add Items That Did Not Appear in the Meeting Notice
    from Tennessee Open Records Counsel addresses the practice of amending an agenda during a meeting Original Author Hodge Elisha Co Author Product Create Date 03 16 2012 Last Reviewed on 03 19 2012 Subject Meetings Planning and management City council Procedure Type Legal Opinion Legal Opinion Reference Documents Text of Document Please remember that these legal opinions were written based on the facts of a given city at a certain

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/15eecfa2e1f281db852579c60067aa31?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Amending an Annexation Ordinance Between Second and
    final reading is generally allowed when the amendment in question is germane to and within the scope of the subject of the ordinance See Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v Mitchell 539 S W 2d 20 1976 and Wilgus v City of Murfreesboro 532 S W 2d 50 1975 It s logical that adding territory in an annexation ordinance is germane to and within the scope of the annexation ordinance In addition the amount of territory to be annexed apparently can be reduced between readings Senff v Columbia 208 Tenn 59 343 S W 2d 888 1961 But the problem with adding territory between readings is that the annexation statute requires the plan of services to be submitted to the planning commission and a public hearing to be held on the plan Tennessee Code Annotated section 6 51 102 b Where territory is added in the annexation ordinance between readings the plan of services and the public hearing for the original territory to be annexed will not have included the additional territory Wilgus v City of Murfreesboro suggests that perhaps the failure to resubmit the plan of services to the planning commission wouldn t be fatal There the Tennessee Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to a zoning ordinance made on the grounds that among other things it had been amended between second and third readings as required by both state law and the city code The Court reasoned that the amendment didn t create so substantial a change that resubmission to the planning commission was required because it wasn t likely to have any effect on the commission s recommendation The problem with applying Wilgus to the addition of territory in an annexation ordinance is that both the city and the courts are left to guess if

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/5280d79956211a1285256bf4006be005?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Amending Ordinance before Final Reading in Deannexing
    as long as the original property description gives adequate notice to the residents owners of the property being deannexed I have researched the statutes governing contraction of municipal boundaries deannexation and find no specific requirement that the ordinance contain a particular legal description of the property being deannexed However T C A 6 51 204 requires the chief executive officer to provide the county tax assessor with a complete description of all property affected by the contractions Further municipal ordinances must provide adequate notice of their subject matter or they may be subject to challenge While there is nothing specific in the statutes I was able to find a Tennessee Supreme Court case that discusses the purpose of requiring a description of property to be published in the resolution calling for election in the context of an annexation City of Johnson City v State ex rel Maden 202 Tenn 318 304 S W 2d 317 Tenn 1957 Essentially the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the requirement was to provide proper notice to those being affected by the municipal action The standard adopted to determine whether the description was adequate was whether it was sufficient to pass title to property under a deed Further the court acknowledged that the metes and bounds description was accompanied by a plat map which it felt would most likely be relied on by the average resident owner and not the legal description Finally it is clear that an ordinance may be amended between readings if only minor changes are involved See Biltmore Hotel Court v City of Berry Hill 390 S W 2d 223 Tenn 1965 See also Article VII Section 12 of your City Charter If the reference to the plat maps although not a precise metes and bounds description differs from the final

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/75e6fd79d9df996985256bf4006cfa04?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Amending Private Act and Home Rule Municipal Charters
    08 2012 Last Reviewed on 05 30 2012 Subject Charters Model Charters City Tennessee Type General Original Document Reference Documents Text of Document Amending Private Act and Home Rule Municipal Charters By Ron Darden Municipal Management Consultant MTAS management and legal consultants are often requested to assist municipal governments in amending their private act and home rule charters In an effort to provide recommended and up to date charter provisions the staff of MTAS has developed three model charters a A charter with the mayor serving as chief administrative officer with veto power b A charter with the city manager serving as chief administrative officer and c A charter with the city administrator serving as chief administrative officer While the MTAS Model Charters are not to be confused with the TCA General Law Model Charters municipal governments considering updating charter provisions may want to consider these model charter provisions The research required for the development of these model charters has included a national review of municipal charter provisions including the National Civic League s Model Charter and an extensive peer review process This work has resulted in the development of three model charters that private act and home rule chartered

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/e0f426cb06238a3185257a0e0067422c?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Amortization of Signs
    only must the ordinance requiring the termination of a nonconforming use be reasonable in and of itself it must be reasonable as it applies to the particular property owner Id In regards to determining the reasonableness of the ordinance the court indicated that the following should be considered 1 the structure located on the property 2 the use of the property 3 the location of the property 4 the cost of the property 5 the benefit to be derived by the public 6 the period of use and 7 the amortization period In determining whether the amortization period is reasonable consideration should be given to the length of the amortization period in relation to the property owner s investment and the length of the amortization period in relation to the use of the property Id at 510 But in considering the plaintiff s contention that the ordinance was invalid under Tenn Code Ann 13 7 208 the court indicated that two requirements must be met before the statute applies 1 There must be zoning where there previously was none or there must be a change in zoning restrictions and 2 there must be permissive operation of a business prior to the change Id at 505 Since there was no significant change insofar as the plaintiff was concerned the ordinance could not be invalidated as to the plaintiff on the basis of Tenn Code Ann 13 7 208 Id In Creative Displays Inc of Knoxville v City of Pigeon Forge 576 S W 2d 356 Tenn App 1978 the city of Pigeon Forge passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of off premises billboards For signs already in existence the ordinance provided a two year amortization or removal period The court found that the grandfather clause contained in what is now Tenn Code Ann 13 7 208 provides for continuation of non conforming uses which existed prior to the establishment of the zoning ordinance and therefore the city could not enjoin the plaintiff to comply with the ordinance Also see Outdoor West of Tennessee Inc v City of Johnson City 39 S W 3d 131 Tenn Ct App 2000 In Lamar Advertising v City of Knoxville 905 S W 2d 175 1995 the court used the two part test set forth in Rives finding that Tenn Code Ann 13 7 208 did not apply to landowner s request for permit to rebuild an existing billboard In summary in Creative Displays the court struck down an amortization period under 13 7 208 However 3 years later in Rives the court upheld an amortization period indicating that such provisions were not unconstitutional under the Tennessee and U S Constitutions Certainly the grandfather provisions in Tenn Code Ann 13 7 208 place significant restrictions on the use of amortization However under the test in Rives those restrictions only come into play when 1 a change in the zoning law has imposed new or different restrictions on the establishment and 2 the establishment conformed to previously

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/a25f628f33b3d858852574c800500046?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Analysis of Floodplain Zoning Ordinance
    the flood plain standards in 6 03 I would have thought that would have been done someplace At the same time I did not find a single case in which a floodplain ordinance was challenged on the grounds that its definitions were defective or that its provisions were inadequate under 60 3 The fact that no such challenge appears does not mean that one will not appear but the possibility seems quite small However I need to compare the Municipal Floodplain Zoning Ordinance and 59 1 and 60 3 again to see if I come out the same way I am going to be out town tomorrow through next Wednesday but I will do that as soon as I get back But as I pondered the question of whether either the incorporation by reference of 59 1 and 60 3 into the Municipal Floodplain Zoning Ordinance is the best way to approach any gaps between those documents I began to wonder whether there is some other way to generally improve the ordinance to intercept any problems that might be found with it In my research on the FEMA Website I ran across a brief FEMA publication entitled Floodplain Management Ordinances and under NFIP Policy Index it contains these subheading Definition Description NIP Requirement Guidance Related Keywords Under Definition Description this text appears Once FEMA provides a community with the flood hazard information upon which floodplain management regulations are based the community is required to adopt a floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements The overriding purpose of the flood plain management regulations is to ensure that participating communities take into account flood hazards to the extent that they are known in all official actions relating to land management and use The specific requirements are in Section 60 3 of the NFIP regulations and apply to communities as follows 60 3 a FDMA has not provided any maps or data 60 3 b FDMA has provided a map with approximate A zones 60 3 c FDMA has provided a FIRM with BFEs 60 3 d FDMA has provided a FIRM with BFEs and a map that shows a flood way 60 3 e FDMA has provided a FIRM that shows coastal high hazard areas V Zones It is important that these requirements are minimum In addition these requirements are cumulative Perhaps I am missing something but it strikes me that rather than incorporating either 59 1 or 60 3 a floodplain ordinance could be written in which the definitions in 59 1 could be laid out with such additions and changes that are appropriate and containing exactly the 60 3 subheadings indicated in the FEMA publication with the text of the standards contained in each of those subheadings with such additions that are more restrictive than the standards found under those subheadings I have read 59 1 60 3 and 60 1 and 60 2 and it seems to me that such an approach to the Municipal

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/94b807c631980b92852574ef006321d9?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Analysis of Greene County and Greeneville Solid Waste RFP Results
    RFP asked for three bids one for transportation only the second for disposal with transportation and the third for disposal only Original Author Hardy Pat Co Author Garkovich Chris Product Create Date 08 31 2004 Last Reviewed on 01 10

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/7e52223f91bb1c1985256f0200678351?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •