Public Comments

8-B-23-OA
George (37932), August 7, 2023 at 12:08 PM

Agenda items (8A23OA,8B23OA,8C23OA,8D23OA,8E23OA)all relate to defining ADU's and relaxing set backs, buffers and the like. These requests can be construed to introduce ADU's to Knoxville. However, may also be construed as method to simply increase building density way tighter than current standards. They also can allow a rental property be added to nearly any lot/location.
I am against each of these agenda items.
And I think the County, the Planning Commission and residents need A LOT more conversations about introducing and controlling ADU's (like the ADU must be occupied by an immediate family member) prior to introduction of this concept.
Following this research, the concept should be trialed in one district to learn impact and control, and NOT just open the floodgates in all districts!

August 7, 2023
at 12:08 PM

8-B-23-OA

Christopher
37932

8-B-23-OA
Christopher (37932), October 2, 2023 at 9:51 PM

I fully support the idea of reducing setbacks on properties. There is no reason why a property needs to maintain a lawn if it does not have to. Besides, a lot of the grass used is not native with the environment and it requires a decent amount of watering, fertilizer, and pesticides that would be best kept to a minimum. My complaint is not against people who want a wide expansive yard, because I can see why some people like the aesthetic. However, forcing everyone to have a big lawn does tend to restrict development. For instance, much of downtown would be impossible to be built today because all the downtown apartments have no setbacks. R. Bentley Marlow's application is a reasonable one, and I hope that you all pass it through.

October 2, 2023
at 9:51 PM

12-SF-23-C

Matthew
37932

12-SF-23-C
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:17 PM

PLEASE see the attached letter regarding this illegal development. There is ZERO path forward due to this developers complete disregard of State Law and local Rules & Regulations. Quit wasting taxpayer money defending a developer over Knox County Taxpayer's safety and concerns. This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission. The next three lawsuits involve the current staff and commission as you have aided this developer and Amy Brooks to, yet again, illegally approve this development against our advisement.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121707.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:17 PM

12-G-23-DP

Matthew
37932

12-G-23-DP
Matthew (37932), December 6, 2023 at 12:18 PM

PLEASE see the attached letter regarding this illegal development. There is ZERO path forward due to this developers complete disregard of State Law and local Rules & Regulations. Quit wasting taxpayer money defending a developer over Knox County Taxpayer's safety and concerns. This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission. The next three lawsuits involve the current staff and commission as you have aided this developer and Amy Brooks to, yet again, illegally approve this development against our advisement.
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231206121818.pdf

December 6, 2023
at 12:18 PM

12-SF-23-C

Mike
37932

12-SF-23-C
Mike (37932), December 12, 2023 at 6:59 PM

I place my trust in you to use the existing laws as the governing framework for making any decisions related to this and all development in Hardin Valley. The developers are fully aware of these laws and if they are allowed to circumvent them by exceptions just because of their relationships, with a wink and a nod that they can go ahead and build with the knowledge that their position will be supported by the planning commission; it sets a terrible precedent.

View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231212185946.pdf

December 12, 2023
at 6:59 PM

12-SF-23-C

Michael
37932

12-SF-23-C
Michael (37932), December 12, 2023 at 9:52 PM

Please see the attached .pdf letter/document. A summary is below. I sadly have to write again about the same topic and agenda item - this time in a new form - as I have previously - The Lantern Park subdivision. This project, owned and developed by Scott Smith, continues to be illegally pushed upon you as Commissioners. The idea is that if they keep on asking, keep on attempting to circumvent - and in fact blatantly not follow - local rules and ordinances as well as the law of the State of Tennessee, they could wear down anyone who stands in their way. Their mantra is essentially "might makes right. Please know that we will continue to vigorously oppose what we know to be right, what the judge has already ruled to be illegal, as well as what you - if you are being honest - know to be wrong. We respectfully ask that you DENY this plan before you, in accordance with, among other things, staff recommendation. It is not your job to bail out developers who seek "end arounds" established law and common sense
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20231212215250.pdf

December 12, 2023
at 9:52 PM

12-SF-23-C

Michele
37932

12-SF-23-C
Michele (37932), December 13, 2023 at 11:07 PM

It is ridiculous that the developers are greedy and after 4 lawsuits still trying to get away with doing what they want. We just want to maintain our road/entrance the way it is. There is no need to disturb that.

December 13, 2023
at 11:07 PM

12-SF-23-C

Heather
37932

12-SF-23-C
Heather (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:19 PM

We vehemently oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. Itâs incredibly disappointing that the planning commission continues to approve development after development without consideration for the impact on the community surrounding this and all the developments. Greater infrastructure needs to be implemented. This development is a blatant disregard for proper planning processes and highlights how corrupt this entire commission and planning process truly is.

January 28, 2024
at 3:19 PM

12-G-23-DP

Heather
37932

12-G-23-DP
Heather (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:20 PM

We vehemently oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. Itâs incredibly disappointing that the planning commission continues to approve development after development without consideration for the impact on the community surrounding this and all the developments. Greater infrastructure needs to be implemented. This development is a blatant disregard for proper planning processes and highlights how corrupt this entire commission and planning process truly is.

January 28, 2024
at 3:20 PM

12-SF-23-C

Kim
37932

12-SF-23-C
Kim (37932), January 28, 2024 at 3:30 PM

This development was determined illegal by Knox County Chancery Court and this staff/commission has no authority to approve as-is. We request you to DENY this plan to avoid a fifth or more lawsuit - The first lawsuit clarifies the illegalities of this plan and the wrongdoings of the previous commission.

January 28, 2024
at 3:30 PM

12-G-23-DP

Fred
37932

12-G-23-DP
Fred (37932), January 28, 2024 at 4:22 PM

I oppose this entire subdivision and plan, as the entirety of it is illegal, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park, as this variance is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan. Please work to preserve and promote smart growth in the county.

January 28, 2024
at 4:22 PM

12-SF-23-C

Jaime
37932

12-SF-23-C
Jaime (37932), January 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM

The proposed development continues to include request for variances that they have created in their proposal. You cannot create your own hardship. This builder was on the planning commission at the time the original proposal was considered. Instead of pushing the rules he should have been an example to the building expectations Knox county currently has. Through litigation, our homeowners association has proven this to be illegal yet the only change has been a one lot reduction that does not address the variance issues. They also continue to build 5 homes on an illegal road location. We ask that you deny this concept plan.

January 30, 2024
at 11:04 AM

12-SF-23-C

Caroline
37932

12-SF-23-C
Caroline (37932), January 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM

I'm a homeowner in Massey Creek for 7 years, and been and oppose the subdivision and plan. This development was determined by Knox County Chancery Court as illegally approved by the previous commission and ordered to be heard through Planning once again if they want to proceed. This developer has not addressed the illegal issues. For example, the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan and influence the developer to adhere to the laws.

January 30, 2024
at 12:58 PM

12-SF-23-C

Vonna
37932

12-SF-23-C
Vonna (37932), January 30, 2024 at 3:04 PM

I am a homeowner in the Massey Creek subdivision for over 5 years and I once again am writing to oppose the entire subdivision and plan. The plan developed is illegal due to the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park. This plan was granted illegal and therefore should be deemed illegal moving forward. Shame on the developer for being money hungry and putting innocent lives at risk.

January 30, 2024
at 3:04 PM

12-SF-23-C

Tom
37932

12-SF-23-C
Tom (37932), January 30, 2024 at 4:07 PM

If what is proceeding has been deemed illegal with a wink and a nod to a builder who clearly appears to have some sort of inside track with friends, where and when does the line get drawn on illegalities? Why do we have any laws? Or do we not follow laws only when someone of importance or connection is inconvenienced? In this case the judge clearly has deemed what is going on as illegal. Yet the ruling is ignored. There is no democratic process here being upheld by our elected officials. Why should any of us follow any laws in Knox County?

January 30, 2024
at 4:07 PM

12-SF-23-C

Mackenzie
37932

12-SF-23-C
Mackenzie (37932), January 30, 2024 at 4:32 PM

I oppose this plan, especially the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park. This was granted illegally and is an illegal variance. The planning for Hardin Valley needs to be smart and follow the rules and regulations set forth by the planning commission. I urge you to push for this property and plan to be halted and stopped. Let's preserve the safety and well being of the people of this county. Thank you for your consideration.

January 30, 2024
at 4:32 PM

12-SF-23-C

Chris
37932

12-SF-23-C
Chris (37932), January 30, 2024 at 6:17 PM

It’s mind blowing that this issue is constantly resurfacing when the build is in clear violation and they keep pursuing their agenda with Knox County. Can we please stop the madness and wasting tax payers money.

January 30, 2024
at 6:17 PM

12-SF-23-C

Tanya
37932

12-SF-23-C
Tanya (37932), January 30, 2024 at 8:49 PM

I’m a homeowner in Massey Creek subdivision, and I ask that you deny this plan. Through litigation with our HOA, this development plan was deemed illegal by Knox County Chancery Court, as a result, this plan should be denied. The developer should be required to adhere to the law.

January 30, 2024
at 8:49 PM

12-G-23-DP

Brandon
37932

12-G-23-DP
Brandon (37932), January 31, 2024 at 2:01 PM

I'm a homeowner in Massey Creek for 3 years and have been and still oppose the subdivision and plan. This development was determined by Knox County Chancery Court as illegally approved by the previous commission and ordered to be heard through Planning once again if they want to proceed. This developer has not addressed the illegal issues. The Massey Creek HOA has sued and won against this developer for the illegal variances granted. For example, the minimum distance between Mission Hill and the entrance to Lantern Park is illegal and was granted illegally. Please reject this plan and influence the developer to adhere to the laws.

January 31, 2024
at 2:01 PM

2-A-25-DP

Greg
37932

2-A-25-DP
Greg (37932), February 10, 2025 at 11:11 PM

see attached
View Attachment

https://agenda.knoxplanning.org/attachments/20250210231117.pdf

February 10, 2025
at 11:11 PM

20 Comments for