[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6174040,"mediaKeyId","5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9","parentId",5376250,"title","Commission denies dog‑boarding use after neighbors cite habitual noise; staff cited lack of use‑on‑review approvals","audioSeconds",371,"startMs",7689000,"endMs",8060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9&start=7689&end=8060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9/thumbnail_7689000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6174040/Tennessee/Commission-denies-dogboarding-use-after-neighbors-cite-habitual-noise-staff-cited-lack-of-useonreview-approvals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174040-0afc3b157f2eca929bf55b2dfae890f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770722336&Signature=HC8oXN8tZ5IZ3FTQ-XThdqAihjuDCxInuyxOKVxM1YhSG1wDjYYK3X3nld~qcDDHxgmO5XrIv2Whgvn01twM4ZnWtKG4FOlOLFUcltx0uumBs-1FAYxL4GXMltqAL-YHlshi4dtRopRrerBuXRqN2g9w5InuRBwL5vCJIGO66Iw~zpcLEA8r3NYfSAMkrQL1sYuT3-~8dDyncIz5j0eknkjx-vjhSu1AIocAkUXdkw9tzrZIDjq87mpayJjzdKNw6wbulJzQGdL-ZqGilfuoWMy96HBeeeP4Qa6z2xbTKmeOAXjD-KaFpKs-M1SdOpOPi-Dyowx~AgjOBlHHar8h9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Knoxville, TN","date","2025-07-11T22:14:08Z","article","Knox County planning commissioners on July 10 denied a request to formalize an existing dog‑boarding operation on an agricultural parcel after staff recommended denial and neighbors documented repeated noise and operating‑without‑approval concerns.

County codes enforcement had already issued a citation for operating a dog kennel without the required use‑on‑review approval, and neighbors provided recordings and testimony describing prolonged barking. An attorney representing nearby residents cited the Knox County animal ordinance’s nuisance language and the ordinance’s definition of “habitually” — “continuously for a period of 10 minutes or intermittently for one‑half hour” — in testimony to the commission.

The applicant’s lawyer told the commission the operation includes indoor, climate‑controlled kennels overnight and that staff and counsel could work with neighbors to relocate outdoor runs on the parcel or add mitigation such as fences and screening. The applicant also submitted a short market‑study packet arguing there is regional demand for kennels.

Commissioners and staff noted that a use‑on‑review outcome must weigh impacts on neighboring properties. Multiple commissioners told the applicant that, as presented — with outdoor runs close to existing houses in a neighboring subdivision — the use as proposed created an adverse impact on neighbors. Commissioner Anderson moved to deny the use‑on‑review and Commissioner Hill seconded; the motion carried.

Staff and neighbors said codes enforcement had held enforcement action pending the commission’s process. Commissioners noted that denial does not permanently bar a kennel at the parcel: the owner can submit a new use‑on‑review application that adjusts site layout, moves runs away from neighboring lots, adds buffering and demonstrates ways to prevent habitual barking. Neighbors and the planning commissioner said that, going forward, any revision should include enforceable measures (setbacks, screening, and operational limits) and clear monitoring provisions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning R 399 250710","oneSentenceSummary","The planning commission denied an application for a dog‑boarding facility operating on agricultural land after staff recommended denial and neighbors documented repeated barking and enforcement concerns. The applicant had already been cited for operating without the required use‑on‑review approval.","taxTitle","Planning Meetings, Knoxville City, Knox County, Tennessee","taxId",72439,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6174045,"Planning commission postpones city’s middle‑housing rule changes after developers, realtors seek more time",750,1025000,1775000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9&start=1025&end=1775","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9/thumbnail_1025000.jpg","/articles/6174045/Tennessee/Planning-commission-postpones-citys-middlehousing-rule-changes-after-developers-realtors-seek-more-time","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174045-9cfc006837232105a5179f6fb7455773/orig.mp4?Expires=1770722336&Signature=GDaa~IB4OyDJvh7b6P5WaKtIfUoxEZGl-DlKNEw16extjb4oQzlUz6R6MkNYCUP4tiBWzhSVV63-aepeiHSRqzY~u8JQABgbv5er1v-DnR~Jg3TQLUuROXdJpG7htPh1tnJncLCLduL8KYgN7pYLkFpb4NN9AopcFbQ-HygJ~n1YOl71X-ShExbm6VogK1sh1vayJI-oGqc6mIa~cp1gFu~nbsrRnGPkK4W58lLQxDVifedGwUCer-tCO5i-Y7UMWiqa~qqi2ydivXCiVsSmu8J0T1hSPVJsxSu-TRqfhaGxzuTpXUTasDzB293HTVGpq-J56Os~rCsKR9uAhKEH1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Knoxville‑Knox County Planning Commission on July 10 postponed consideration of multiple proposed amendments to Knoxville City Code that would change how “middle housing” (duplexes, triplexes, small multiplexes and related forms) is regulated. The commission voted to delay for 30 days after housing‑industry representatives, architects and real‑estate stakeholders urged additional stakeholder review.

City staff told commissioners the amendments clarify definitions and align site standards across several articles in Appendix B of the Knoxville City Code. The staff report argued the changes would “diversify housing options and increase homeownership opportunity” by, among other changes, creating a new single‑family attached use (allowing individual sale of paired units) and clarifying standards for middle‑housing lot widths, projections, and administrative variances.

Multiple speakers from the East Tennessee Realtors Association and local architects said recent middle‑housing approvals relied heavily on administrative variances and on approvals for nonconforming lots of record. Maria McHale of East Tennessee Realtors warned that removing the administrative‑variance pathway and tightening lot‑width rules without compensating adjustments could eliminate a sizable share of parcels that had been feasible for middle housing. Architect Jonah Pruitt and developer R. Bentley Marlowe presented drawings showing how duplexes and triplexes had been successfully built on narrow, nonconforming lots and said a straight reduction in allowable lot width would prevent similar projects.

The city’s analysis presented by staff noted data showing a large share of nonconforming parcels in RN‑1 through RN‑4 would meet middle‑housing dimensions; staff also said the number of vacant lots that could accommodate larger multiplexes under the draft changes was very small. Commissioners were split: some said the code should be tightened now and then reviewed, while others warned that prohibitive lot thresholds would curtail an already small pipeline of middle‑housing projects.

After hearing the concerns, Commissioner Overton moved to postpone consideration for 30 days “to relook at stuff” and allow staff to work with stakeholders. The motion carried.

Staff told commissioners it will continue data analysis on nonconforming lots, lot‑width impacts and the precise interaction of the draft variance rules with existing nonconforming‑lot protections. Commissioners asked staff and industry to return with revised language that protects small‑lot opportunities for duplexes and multiplexes where the city intends middle housing to be available.

The postponement does not change existing code; applicants may still pursue projects under current rules. The commission’s action creates an explicit 30‑day review window for staff and community stakeholders to refine the proposal before the commission votes again.","Commissioners postponed proposed amendments to Knoxville’s zoning rules for middle housing by 30 days after developers, realtors and architects warned that new lot‑width language and removal of administrative variances could sharply reduce feasible lots for middle‑housing types on nonconforming parcels.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6174049,"Commission tables Cardinal Place planned development after residents, commissioners question public benefits and upkeep",636,6544000,7180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9&start=6544&end=7180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5376250-aaa9c83a81bb99c11160dd99ca8923b9/thumbnail_6544000.jpg","/articles/6174049/Tennessee/Commission-tables-Cardinal-Place-planned-development-after-residents-commissioners-question-public-benefits-and-upkeep","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174049-ef606d00f04c529b068f5bcc7bd3eb7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770722336&Signature=KLOlSFFe0KgfwnHR0XDoFmFwuoPEDpTPlgaG3xOrs9NexuQlhqvO3dY-XnLd73LYoDscDDK~JfKWGc6lrzfun-UAVMeTEZDObfBn0QOIBRvIhEbllM8peISREOkn6PuU-Hl1GG85~fxLc8Nl8xoa-NcSdlLhLtlkvtsmOGDkFY4YqxETA4vCLGERHLCJo7pf~GD7i6k8BhldubiOreGKaSBlbN8oEoOLvX4EC847PASGt5VdDrH~zE4nXqIphYx~E5wCCj-XD6z69y3LhS~y8yJsgWMShnYKJ~ml1cTO-s8ZP6USCY4AgFrNqSSX3BdIdP5n-eqk1ZGAbGqOP2IKZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission on July 10 tabled consideration of Cardinal Place, a proposed roughly 31-acre planned residential development, after extended public comment and a heated commission debate about whether the project’s community benefits would be enough to justify waiving standard zoning rules. The developer asked for the postponement to continue working with staff and neighbors.

Supporters say the plan would add market-rate housing and public amenities; opponents and several commissioners said the promised public benefits appeared aimed primarily at future tenants and lacked enforceable maintenance or access guarantees for the broader community. Developer representatives told the commission they had committed to more than 11 acres of park/open space, roughly 6 miles of walking paths and “five times” the required number of accessible units; they also said the design limits building heights and that some elements would be finalized at the final-plan stage.

Commissioners and speakers repeatedly returned to the core question of planned-development law: does what a developer proposes go beyond what a property owner could build under the underlying zoning, in a way that produces public benefit? Commissioner Gill summarized that question during deliberations: “To me, a planned development is something that is to be necessarily big thinking...something that’s outside of what we could already do in RN‑6. This, to me, just seems like a normal apartment building with the normal amenities that go along with it.” That perspective resonated with officials who said much of the project’s profile could be achieved by a conventional multifamily application in a higher-density district.

Neighbors said the project as currently sited would increase traffic on Del Rose Drive, create public-safety concerns because the area has few sidewalks, and bring noise and parking pressures. A local resident and first‑responder warned the commission the nearby road already sees crashes and that additional vehicle trips would worsen an existing safety problem. Several commissioners and community speakers pressed the applicant to show how amenities would be accessible to neighbors rather than exclusively to residents, and whether the city or a third party would have an enforceable maintenance obligation for parks, trails and courts.

Developer representatives asked the commission for time to work through those points with staff and community representatives and said they would return with clearer maintenance and access commitments. Director-level staff said they had engaged multiple city departments and non‑profit partners and that the applicant had materially revised the plan since the earlier concept review, but staff also pointed to unresolved items in their written recommendation that would need to be addressed before final approval.

After robust discussion the commission approved a motion to table the Cardinal Place preliminary plan; the applicant stated on the record that it will use the continuance to pursue solutions with staff and neighbors.

Commissioners said they expect subsequent submittals to clarify: who would be legally responsible for maintenance of the proposed public spaces; whether amenities are genuinely open to the public and how access would be signed and enforced; specific changes to building siting so steep slopes are avoided; and a parking approach matched to final unit mix. Several commissioners suggested a maintenance covenant tied to the development’s restrictive covenants or a third‑party trust as one way to provide enforceable long‑term upkeep.

The postponement leaves a path forward for the developer, but also formalizes the commission’s expectation that plan‑development waivers deliver demonstrable, enforceable public benefits beyond the private amenities typically included in market-rate apartment projects.","Knox County Planning Commission voted to table a proposed 650-unit planned development called Cardinal Place after weekslong neighborhood opposition and commissioners’ unresolved questions about noise, traffic, maintenance responsibility and whether the project delivers public benefits beyond amenities for future tenants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission denies dog‑boarding use after neighbors cite habitual noise; staff cited lack of use‑on‑review approvals

Planning commission postpones city’s middle‑housing rule changes after developers, realtors seek more time

Commission tables Cardinal Place planned development after residents, commissioners question public benefits and upkeep