Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sevier County commissioners deny rezoning for 1311 Ina Grace after neighbors raise traffic, noise and water concerns
Loading...
Summary
After extensive public comment from nearby residents, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners voted 24–0 (1 absent) to deny a request to rezone parcels at 1311 Ina Grace from R‑1 to R‑2, citing fears of increased traffic on a narrow one‑lane road, amplified short‑term rental activity and potential strain on groundwater and septic systems.
Sevier County commissioners voted March 16 to deny a rezoning request for parcels at 1311 Ina Grace after neighbors testified that a higher‑density development and an event center would disrupt the quiet, rural character of their neighborhood.
Valerie Goodman, speaking during the public comment period, said the proposal “represents a significant shift in land use intensity that raises several concerns for the surrounding neighborhoods,” citing continuous visitor turnover at short‑term rentals, concentrated surges of traffic on a narrow one‑lane road, and potential increased demand on groundwater and septic systems. Aaron Goodman spoke on behalf of neighbors who could not attend, and adjacent property owner Alda Overstreet said the nearby property has expanded from two small short‑term units to six and that additional parties and traffic would be disruptive. Overstreet said she works from home and that the change “would definitely disrupt me but also all the other neighbors.”
The Sevier County Regional Planning Commission had recommended AGAINST the rezoning. Commissioner B. Delius moved to deny Resolution 2026‑03‑07 (rezone Tax Map 73 parcels 43.01 and 43.03 at 1311 Ina Grace from R‑1 to R‑2); Commissioner J. Parton seconded. The motion to deny carried by roll‑call vote 24 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent. Commissioner Ronnie Allen had left the meeting prior to the vote.
The denial leaves the property under its existing R‑1, rural residential designation. No formal next step for the applicant was recorded in the meeting minutes; the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the recorded public comments served as the principal evidentiary record for the commissioners’ decision.
Officials did not make any binding commitments on road upgrades, septic inspections, or water‑use restrictions at the meeting. The county office’s record of the hearing will include the Planning Commission recommendation and the public comments presented during the meeting.