Residents and conservation groups tell Knox County commission the draft plan lacks 'teeth' to protect farmland, hillsides and habitat

Public commenters at the March 21 Knox County informational workshop urged commissioners to revise the draft comprehensive plan to include stronger, enforceable protections for farmland, steep slopes and natural resources and to provide clearer implementation steps and maps.

Kevin Murphy summarized public input as four priorities: housing, protecting rural character and agriculture, school integration and fiscal responsibility, and he urged “concrete steps” and enforceable policies to protect rural areas. Sandra Corbella told commissioners the plan’s conservation language is too narrow and lacks maps and implementation policies that would identify and protect threatened species, riparian buffers and other natural resources; she said additional materials will be submitted to staff.

Kimberly Pettigrew, director of food systems at United Way of Greater Knoxville, presented survey findings and regional farmland statistics — citing American Farmland Trust figures that she summarized as 8–10% farmland loss in Tennessee between 2016 and 2040 — and emphasized the role of community gardens and the local food system in resilience.

Larry Silverstein of Community Forum and Gerald Thornton of the Sierra Club argued the draft too readily replaces sector plans, risks confusing property owners, and does not yet provide the “teeth” residents want in zoning and subdivision regulations. Multiple commenters asked that the county codify the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan and adopt conservation subdivision standards in the zoning ordinance rather than leaving them only as recommendations in the comprehensive plan.

Consultants responded that a rural agriculture place type was added in response to feedback, that the plan identifies areas for future study (including Choteau) and that appendix materials (Appendix 8) map place types to current zoning categories as an interim tool. Staff and consultants repeatedly noted that implementation of many protections requires an update to the zoning code and subdivision regulations — a separate step that will follow plan adoption.

Commissioners pressed both sides on whether mandatory language could be introduced now, whether certain amendments would have to return to the Planning Commission for review, and whether environmental layers (steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, prime agricultural soils) could be added to map layers to make tradeoffs more visible.

Why it matters: commenters framed the question as whether the County intends the comprehensive plan to be advisory only or to be the vehicle for codified protections. Consultants said the plan is the first step and that regulatory changes would follow, while public commenters urged that stronger mandatory language and maps be added now to restore trust.

Next step: public commenters said they would submit written materials; commissioners and staff discussed amendment procedures ahead of the April 22 County Commission vote and the linked growth‑plan timeline through May 27.