Board denies appeals arguing conversion should escape new-construction design standards

The Knoxville Board of Zoning Appeals on a split, closely argued record denied two appeals from a property owner who contended the city had improperly applied new-construction design standards to a conversion project.

R. Bentley Marlo told the board he had multiple active, inspected building permits on a structure at Douglas Avenue and argued that the zoning code’s definition of "building" — "any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy which has a roof and enclosing wall for at least half of its perimeter" — makes the work an existing building, not new construction. "This is an existing building under our own zoning code," Marlo said, adding that the structure also met definitions in the IRC, IBC and IEBC and that variances approved in 2023 were recorded on the plat.

Planning and building staff and several board members disputed that legal framing, saying the project had been modified mid-construction and had not received a certificate of occupancy; staff argued the change-after-permit process can require a revised project to meet design standards that apply to new construction. In his explanation of the administrative position, a staff member said, in effect, that "if you change horses midstream you may need to meet the design standards that apply to the new scope."

The board’s deliberations focused on statutory interpretation, vested-rights doctrine and whether the prior variances and recorded plat bound the current, revised project. Several board members noted there are established pathways — finish the originally permitted project and convert afterward or submit a new project under the conversion standards — and framed the issue as whether those procedural options had been followed.

After questions and extended discussion, the panel voted to deny the appeals and accept staff's determination that the work should be reviewed as a revised project under article 16.3 and applicable middle-housing/conversion rules. The board’s motion to deny the appeal was carried; the decision leaves the applicant the option of seeking relief under the conversion standards or submitting a new application.