The Planning Commission voted to overturn staff denials and approve two missing‑middle submittals from architect/developer R. Bentley Marlowe, after a review of whether the projects met the newly adopted middle‑housing design standards.

Staff had denied both submittals, saying the designs did not meet the intent of Article 4.6 to produce housing forms compatible in footprint, height and setbacks with surrounding neighborhoods. In one case staff said the building matched the townhouse definition; in the other staff said the building did not meet multiplex or triplex definitions as interpreted by planners.

Marlowe and project architects argued the designs complied with the code language as written. Marlowe and his representatives invoked Tennessee Supreme Court precedent requiring zoning ambiguities be interpreted in favor of property owners. Architect Jonah Pruitt said the projects were designed to meet the middle‑housing standards and to produce compact, one‑ and two‑bedroom units suitable for local housing demand.

Commissioners were split: several said the forms were not in the spirit of the middle‑housing intent to be compatible with existing neighborhood scale, but a majority concluded that, under the ordinance language as enacted, the applications met the standards and that ambiguities must be resolved in the applicant’s favor. On both appeals the motion to overturn staff and approve the applications passed by recorded votes.

Ending: Commissioners and staff noted the decision highlights ambiguous areas in the middle‑housing definitions. Several commissioners urged staff to return with clearer language to prevent similar disputes; Marlowe said he would proceed with permit submittals.