Blount County planning commission debates scaling back open‑space rules after cluster program sees no applications

Blount County planning commissioners met in a work session to discuss possible changes to the county's cluster‑development rules, focusing on the required share of open space, whether the rules incentivize developers, and whether the ordinance is accomplishing the county's goals. No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session; staff asked commissioners what, if any, specific materials they wanted prepared for next month's meeting.

Commissioner McClellan opened the discussion and called for commissioners to weigh in on whether the current cluster provisions are delivering the outcomes intended when the program was updated. Commissioners and staff traced the regulation's history to earlier county subdivision rules and to a 2005 Hunter Interest study, noting that cluster development has appeared in local rules for years but that the design and intent vary widely.

Why it matters: cluster development rules affect how and where housing is built — whether lots are smaller but grouped to preserve open space, or whether developers instead pursue conventional subdivisions that spread development across more land. The commission's decision will influence density, infrastructure demand (notably sewer versus septic), and the appearance and cost of new housing across Blount County.

At the session commissioners and staff offered these factual points and options discussed:

- The county commission previously amended recommended rates and returned the matter to planning: the commission approved 35% open space in suburbanizing areas and 40% in R‑1 as the numbers to consider. Participants said neither the current nor previous formulations appear to have attracted applications. Several people described the program as effectively creating a two‑year moratorium because developers were not using the tool.

- Staff and one commissioner recommended reducing the open‑space requirement materially (suggestions included 20% or 25%) and limiting the calculation to “usable” open space, not counting detention ponds or unbuildable slopes.

- Commissioners and staff contrasted different cluster models: some conserve large contiguous tracts (sometimes called “conservation developments”) and can drive up home prices; others distribute pockets of open space with smaller lots to lower per‑home land cost. The 2005 Hunter Interest study was cited as an illustrative design in county files but not as the only model.

- Participants argued cluster options have potential advantages: allowing development where infrastructure exists (sanitary sewer), setting aside sensitive terrain, reducing overall road and utility costs, and creating community amenities. Others said the market — not regulations alone — determines whether a cluster product is attractive to developers.

- Commissioners cited local examples and names discussed in the meeting for context, including Best Farms, Allenbrook and Ralston View, and noted Knoxville as a jurisdiction with older cluster concepts they are reviewing.

One commissioner who said he drafted the current program described personal frustration that the revised rules had become “unusable” and, as written, appeared to deter applications rather than encourage the intended clustered development. That speaker called the outcome “a moratorium” for the cluster option and said he felt responsible for the unintended result. Staff later asked whether the commission wanted revised materials or the original draft returned for consideration at the next meeting.

No formal actions were taken in the session. Staff asked commissioners to clarify whether they wanted a revised draft prepared and, if so, what elements to change (for example, a lower open‑space percentage or a clarified definition of “usable” open space). The commission did not set a formal new target or vote to transmit a recommendation to the county commission during the work session.

Next steps: staff will prepare materials for the planning commission's next meeting based on the guidance the commissioners provide; any change to the county rules would require formal consideration and, if the planning commission recommends it, action by the county commission.