Knox County commissioners debate rural protections, timelines in comprehensive plan review

Commissioners at a Knox County Board of Commissioners workshop on April 15 weighed extensive edits to a proposed comprehensive land use and transportation plan, focusing debate on rural densities, accessory dwelling units, soils and how prescriptive the county’s policy language should be.

Commissioner Kim Frasier, who led a page-by-page set of proposed text changes, said the goal is to strengthen protections for rural areas, add transportation-impact and hillside/ridgetop protections, and provide clearer plan-amendment criteria ahead of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process. “This is to create a sustainable balance of growth and transportation that will restore the integrity of our land use policies,” she said.

The most contested items involved rural-living place types and related zoning. Residents speaking during the public forum urged lower densities and more caution in expanding the planned growth area. Kevin Murphy told commissioners that 2 units per acre — a density included in the draft plan for some areas — produces a suburban appearance and will not protect farmland; he said Tennessee has lost roughly 90,000 acres of agricultural and forestry land per year in recent years and recommended densities closer to one unit per two acres or lower. Herb Anders, a former planning commissioner from the Ruggles Ferry community, asked that the current planned-residential (PR) zone be removed from rural place types because PR produces subdivision patterns that conflict with rural character. Lisa Starbucks, a Northeast Knox resident, urged using the rural living place type in the expanded growth area until small-area infrastructure plans are complete.

Commissioners debated two broad approaches: adopt prescriptive language now (many uses of “shall”) to give the UDO a strong policy foundation, or leave more discretion to the future UDO (more “shall consider” language). Law Director Mike Moyers and planning staff cautioned that making major, new substantive criteria (for example, several new amendment thresholds) without prior planning-commission vetting could require sending changes back to the Planning Commission before adoption.

Other recurring themes included whether accessory dwelling units ("in-law suites" or bunkhouses) should be explicitly allowed in rural zones, how to define and avoid “isolated” developments until infrastructure is planned, and whether to add GIS-based layers (prime soils, floodplains, wildlife corridors) to guide future rezoning decisions.

Staff said many technical details — precise infrastructure metrics, sidewalk timing, cost-estimate procedures, and accessory unit definitions — are appropriate to resolve through the UDO process, which the county expects to draft in roughly 18–24 months. Planning staff and the consultant also recommended more robust amendment criteria for plan updates; commissioners differed over whether to require two criteria be met or to accept the consultant’s original language.

Procedural outcome: after many substitute motions and roll-call exchanges, the commission agreed on a path forward focused on process rather than immediate adoption of additional mandates. Commissioners voted to proceed with a formal vote at the next scheduled meeting (the board agreed to accept the Planning Commission packet for consideration) and directed that any proposed amendments be posted to the county’s public forum by end of day Wednesday so commissioners and the public can review them before the Monday vote. Law staff said items that introduce substantive new criteria not previously reviewed by the Planning Commission would need to be returned to that body for recommendation.

What’s next: the Planning Commission’s packet remains the primary starting point; commissioners were told that the underlying zoning for properties will not change automatically with the plan’s map, and that any rezoning remains a separate process. Planning staff will compile posted amendments and staff-suggested language; the county will proceed with a vote Monday on the items that remain on the agenda and that can be considered without returning to Planning Commission. Further modifications may be considered in future amendment cycles if needed.

Quotes that capture the debate:

"Two units an acre ... that looks suburban," Kevin Murphy said, urging lower densities to protect farmland.

"Accessory dwelling units can be addressed during the UDO," Director Brooks told the board, noting that many details will be decided in the UDO drafting and ordinance process.

"If something is a substantial addition that the Planning Commission did not consider, we should get their advice," Law Director Mike Moyers said.

The commission asked staff to post commissioner-proposed amendments publicly ahead of the Monday meeting and to organize contested items so the board can vote on broadly agreed changes and reserve separate debate for individual controversial amendments. The workshop adjourned after community announcements and event reminders.