Neighbors oppose Barbar Lane development; hearing deferred after applicant absence

The Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals heard emotional public opposition to a proposed home at 3324 and 3328 Barbar Lane during the April meeting. Homeowner Mary Loveless told the board she opposes the proposal and said the properties are being used for short‑term rentals, which she and other neighbors said has caused noise, parking congestion and safety incidents.

"As a homeowner in the Waxford subdivision ... I'm very much against the proposition of a new home to be built on the properties of 3324 and 3328 Barbar Lane," said Mary Loveless, who identified herself as living at 3317 Barbar Lane. Loveless alleged the owners of nearby units listed multiple homes on short‑term rental platforms and described repeated nuisance activity, including loud parties and an instance she said involved a renter urinating on her front porch.

Other neighbors amplified the complaints. Steve Wyrick said the cluster of rentals had created a parking and traffic problem that made the unlaned residential street difficult to navigate. "That's too much traffic," Wyrick said, noting several nearby properties he said were listed for short stays. Dave Ringle said the rentals were lowering nearby property values and said trash, theft and heavy construction vehicles were becoming common in the neighborhood. Gloria Maples told the board that winter parking had blocked access for her son, who is on dialysis, and that the congestion posed safety concerns.

The clerk read the application—identified as the request of Ben Mullins to appeal a planning commission denial of development plan 3D26DP for parcels at 3324 and 3328 Barbar Lane—and the chair confirmed the applicant was not present. The board told opponents they could present their case; opponents used the allotted time to document nuisance incidents and to ask the board to deny the development or to impose conditions. Several speakers referenced the property owners by name during remarks to the board.

Because the applicant did not appear, the item was deferred. The clerk and chair confirmed the case will be heard on the fourth Wednesday in May; the board set May 27 as the next hearing date for the application. Opponents were warned that if they used their full opposition time now they would have less time to respond if the applicant appears at the future hearing.

What happens next: the board will consider the application with the applicant present on May 27. Neighbors who wish to submit documentation were told to provide that evidence to the clerk in advance of the rescheduled hearing.