KNOX COUNTY, Tenn. — The Knox County Growth Policy Plan has hit another wave of turbulence after a Knox County commissioner suggested more changes to it as county leaders are poised to vote it past the finish line.
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs on Thursday sent a letter to commissioners urging them to pass the Advance Knox Land Use and Transporation Plan "without delay," which is the county's updated land use and transportation plan that will guide development and growth decisions for the next 20 years.
"I have great respect for each of you and understand you are representing constituents who have shared criticism regarding our plan. However, the proposed plan is a result of two years of dialogue, compromise and consensus building with each of you and the community at large," Jacobs said. "The time for wholesale changes has passed. I ask you to pass the plan as presented."
The letter comes as the Knox County Commission prepares to vote on putting the county's growth plan into action. The plan was nearly torpedoed in March when the Farragut Board of Mayor and Alderman voted 2-3 against approving it. The county was able to convince the board to reconsider, and it passed earlier in April after one alderman changed their vote.
At-Large Commissioner Kim Frazier discussed more than a dozen changes she wanted to see made to the plan during Monday's work session. Some of the changes she suggested dealt with adding specifics in the plan when it came to protections for rural areas that could be targeted for new development. She said she heard from her constituents that they wanted to see more specificity in the development plan on some items.
Commissioners and other leaders spent hours asking questions and hashing out specifics she brought up for the plan.
"The point is because we've done a really crappy job with planning and land use over the last 10 and 15 years, and we are going forward and not backwards because where we are now is not fiscally sustainable," Frazier said during the meeting after being challenged on one proposal.
She argued the commission had a history of being "interpretive and loose" on land use matters over the years, saying she wanted more specifics to give the plan "more teeth."
District 4 Commissioner Kyle Ward said he disagreed and felt the wording on some changes would make the plan less flexible to emerging needs in the future, saying he believed the changes would normally be taken up on a case-by-case basis by the council of 11 as a whole rather than trying to codify it in the plan.
"I would rather it be to the 11 than you and me," Ward said.
Others agreed the development plan is not written to be restrictive on individual matters, saying adjustments can and should be made as needed to suit future development needs as they arise.
"We do have the ability to make change. It's not like we're nailed down to it," District 6 Commissioner Terry Hill said.
"It's really up to the body. I'm just kind of throwing this out there and saying these are things that I feel would be good policy," Frazier said. "You can like one, or all, or pieces. You might like the idea of including some of them in the original text. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion and consideration."
Frazier said she kept hearing "over and over again" that her constituents wanted the plan to "have more teeth."
"This was my attempt to take all of the perspectives, the dozens of suggestions that were submitted to me and do the very best that I can to put them all together," she said.
On Thursday, Jacobs sent a letter to commissioners making it clear he wanted the final plan to pass as it currently stands as soon as possible without any more changes. There were specific proposals brought up during the work session that he said were "unacceptable," which he would not sign off on:
- Any amendments that would create criteria to not approve development relating to environmentally sensitive areas, including soil types.
- Listing public services as a criteria to not approve a development.
- Making amendments to the housing mix in the plan as currently proposed by changing, adding to, or omitting placetype, zoning or density.
- Any changes to the Plan Amendment Criteria. He said those were identified by a consultant as "best practices in other counties."
- Adding any development standard requirements for placetypes, including requiring developers to create recreational opportunities or amenities that would "needlessly inflate already soaring housing costs." Jacobs said those decisions should be "market driven."
He said he understood the conflict of having to meet the differing interests of the more than 470,000 people across the county.
"It's not perfect, but I believe we've done just that. We cannot let the protests of any vocal minority cause us to balk on the precipice of a generational achievement for the people we are elected to serve," he said. "Please pass the comprehensive plan as is, and without delay."
Frazier said in a statement to 10News that she still fully supports Mayor Jacob's plan, but that she wanted to make sure that her constituents across the county were heard when it came to the amendments she proposed.
"As an At Large Commissioner, I brought forth considerations representative of those that I was elected to serve, and I consider it a privilege to do so. All considerations that I presented were fully communicated with the leadership team over the course of months where we respectfully and mutually recognized our agreements and disagreements. That is how the legislative process should work; good, consistent, intentional discussion and advocacy working towards a common goal and that is exactly what I have experienced throughout this process," she said.
On Friday, East Tennessee Realtors threw its support behind Jacobs and encouraged the commission to pass the plan without any "substantial amendments."
"The final version of the plan is the culmination of more than two years of extensive public input and technical guidance from subject matter experts – including eight utility districts, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knox County Schools and many others," the organization said. "If implemented, these amendments risk making development less predictable and more expensive – further exacerbating the housing shortage."