Decision on 524‑unit US 411 multifamily proposal in Maryville is tabled after traffic and access concerns

The Blount County Board of Zoning Appeals heard a presentation on a proposed 524‑unit multifamily planned unit development on approximately 41.1 acres at 3652 US 411 South in the Maryville area and tabled the application to its July 2 meeting after extended discussion about traffic, access and permitting.

Thomas Lamoyed of Blount County Development Services told the board the application is a planned unit development that meets zoning standards for high‑density multifamily and outlined necessary procedures, including platting the three tracks into a single parcel and securing outside permits from TDOT and state agencies. "We recommend approval," Lamoyed said, provided the board can make the statutory findings under section 11.5.

Rick Porter, the applicant's director of development, described the project as consistent with the county comprehensive plan, noting 52% green space, compliance with scenic‑highway and zoning height limits (none exceed 35 feet), and a range of unit sizes from roughly 850 to 1,400 square feet. Porter said the project would avoid wetlands, provide two stormwater ponds and include typical resident amenities.

Residents voiced concerns about congestion at the nearby Highway 411/129 intersection. Tony Satti, who lives adjacent to the site, said adding an estimated 500–800 residents into the intersection area would worsen existing congestion and safety concerns. John Gould of CDM Smith, the traffic‑study author, said background growth alone brings the intersection close to capacity ("around 90% of capacity"), and that the development adds about 212 peak trips; he said the level of service remains acceptable under the study assumptions but recommended longer‑range planning to maintain capacity.

Board members discussed whether recommended capacity enhancements were actionable by the county or required TDOT action; staff and the traffic consultant emphasized TDOT jurisdiction for state highways and that the board can make recommendations to TDOT but cannot unilaterally require changes to a state‑controlled corridor. A motion to approve with stipulations did not pass; the board voted to table the application to the July 2 meeting for further review and to secure additional documents and any TDOT responses.

The application will return to the July 2 agenda with any supplemental material requested by the board, and any final approval would remain contingent on meeting the findings required under section 11.5 and obtaining all necessary county and state permits.