Council approves change to nonconforming‑lot rules after heated debate over housing and community uses

Knoxville City Council on Aug. 20 approved an amendment to Knoxville City Code Appendix B, Article 17.3 that changes how nonconforming lots of record may be used and developed within the city.

Proponents said the amendment clarifies standards and protects neighborhood character; opponents said it will curtail small, lower‑priced “middle housing” projects and limit community uses such as group homes, community gardens and small parks.

Developer R. Bentley Marlowe testified in opposition and showed council renderings of 17‑foot‑wide triplexes he said had won planning commission approval. “Each unit’s roughly 607, 625 square feet,” Marlowe said, and he told council he believes he can bring units “to market at under $200,000” each. He said projects he described would produce about $6,500 a year in city property tax for each triplex and argued the amendment would remove the option to use some nonconforming lots for homes and other civic uses.

“I urge you to postpone or send this amendment back to planning so it can be properly discussed,” Marlowe said. “If you vote today, we are eliminating the possibility to use nonconforming lots for group homes. You’re preventing and eliminating the ability to use nonconforming lots for community gardens. You’re preventing and eliminating the ability to use nonconforming lots for parks.”

Councilwoman Singh moved to remand the item back to the Planning Commission to allow additional review; that motion was seconded and debated but failed. Singh called the issue “a class issue,” and said the council should not rush a change that could affect affordability. “This is about making homes for people who can afford something under $200,000,” she said.

Other council members pressed planning staff about what specific uses would be affected. Planning staff (referred to in the meeting as Miss Brooks) told council members staff could prepare edits to restore certain uses — including community and personal gardens or parks — and bring them before the commission by the October deadline if council chose not to remand the item. City building/planning staff (Mister Ahrens) told council members that, in practice, most gardens do not require a permit and staff only intervene when a complaint is filed.

Council members who opposed remanding said the Planning Commission had already vetted the change and had voted unanimously in support at its meeting. Council member Bridal said planning commissioners “passed unanimously” and that staff and commission conversations had addressed many concerns. Council member Parker and others said they remained concerned about process and unanswered details; Parker asked whether any permits were already pending that could be affected, and staff said they were aware of applications filed but did not provide a unit count.

After debate the council voted to approve the ordinance amendment as presented. The motion to remand failed; the motion to approve the amendment carried later in the meeting. The ordinance change was recorded on the agenda as item 9 j (second reading) and was incorporated into the consent action after discussion and separate votes on the consent agenda.

Council members and staff said several follow‑up steps could occur after the approval: staff said they would accept suggested language to reinstate expressly allowed community uses and bring it back to the Planning Commission for the October deadline if council or neighborhoods requested that course. Opponents urged postponement and broader community review; proponents said their goal was to align the code with the planning policy approved earlier and to prevent unintended development loopholes.