Workshop attendees weigh relocating Moses Armstrong House to allow adjacent development

At a Nov. 3 workshop of the Knox County Historic Zoning Commission, applicants and preservation advocates outlined a plan to relocate the Moses Armstrong House at 6114 Asheville Highway a short distance to permit commercial development along the highway, and asked for preliminary feedback and a conditional path forward.

"So again, today we will be discussing the proposal to relocate the Moses Armstrong House at 6114 Asheville Highway to a site a few 100 yards away from its original location and a potential change to the historical overlay boundary," said Miranda Ward of Knox County code administration, opening the presentation.

The house, described in staff materials as a two‑story brick, central‑passage vernacular residence with Federal influences built circa 1805, has later 20th‑century additions and is one of the few surviving early‑19th‑century brick houses in Knox County. Staff reviewed Secretary of the Interior standards and National Park Service guidance, noting that relocation typically diminishes aspects of integrity — including location, setting, feeling and association — and that relocation is usually discouraged unless no feasible preservation alternative exists.

Ben Mullins, the applicants' local attorney, told commissioners the relocation would be on the same parcel, just over 100–150 yards from the current site, and that the proposed new pad would be raised to address flood concerns. "What we're asking really here is looking for some preliminary feedback and potentially, consideration for a conditional approval of relocating the house, to within the same site within the historical zoning overlay that's currently existing," Mullins said.

Mullins said the property owner lacks funds to preserve the house absent an economic incentive tied to adjacent development and that, without a viable plan, demolition remained a real risk. He described a plan to form a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to take ownership of the house after relocation and said the purchase closing would include $100,000 seed money to support initial preservation work and grant applications.

Preservation advocates on the panel were cautiously supportive. Dr. Warren Docker, identified as president of the East Tennessee Historical Society, said removing non‑historic additions and relocating the building could improve its case for National Register consideration under architectural criteria. "In my opinion, historically speaking, we would still be eligible once it's moved," Dr. Docker said, while noting that the State Historic Preservation Office and the Tennessee Historical Commission (THC) must review eligibility and that a full reevaluation after any move would be required.

Several commissioners urged more time and clearer documentation before any formal approval. "If you're coming to this commission and seeking my vote, I'd rather see somebody spend another two months . . . to see if I can relocate this and get it to a point and it's still [National Register] eligible," said Commissioner George Ewart, who said he could not support an approval without further diligence.

Flood risk and site engineering were recurring concerns. Commissioners and applicants discussed raising the new foundation pad by five to seven feet, designing drainage and grading around the site, and preparing civil engineering drawings that show how the house would be protected from periodic flooding. Applicant team members said an economic window exists because developers working across Asheville Highway are mobilizing large earthmoving operations that could provide fill material and reduce relocation costs.

Staff and applicants also identified a discrepancy in the 1993 historic overlay boundary maps and discussed administrative boundary corrections or updates so the historically significant portion of the parcel is protected at the new location. Ward said THC staff had provided preliminary, informal feedback that the proposed new site could be "a relatively good candidate" for maintaining eligibility after relocation because of the house's architectural importance, but reiterated that THC could not give a pre‑move guarantee — a formal reevaluation would follow any relocation.

The commission and applicants agreed on next steps rather than taking action at the workshop. Mullins said the team would pursue additional engineering, engage THC and Knox Heritage, and return with more documentation; he indicated another workshop would be appropriate. Commissioners and applicants suggested scheduling site visits for commissioners in advance of the next meeting so members can inspect the structure and surroundings.

The workshop concluded with agreement to reconvene, with staff and the applicant team targeting a follow‑up workshop on Nov. 20 to present engineering reports, documentation of National Register eligibility considerations, and more detailed site plans.

Actions and formal votes were not taken at the Nov. 3 workshop; commissioners repeatedly framed the session as a request for feedback and emphasized that any approval should be conditional on submission and review of engineering and historic‑resource documentation.