Let’s revisit residential zoning.

Recall that 85 percent of the 73,000 parcels in the city are designated “residential.” Those eight zones (EN plus RN-1 to -7) house some of the mostly controversial social-engineering assumptions laced into the proposed Recode Knoxville update.

By now, we have become familiar with Recode’s preference for multi-family, duplexes, apartments, accessory dwelling units and greater density generally. That makes sense along major corridors and bus routes, but there are policy issues when unspoken social engineering intrudes into and disrupts existing neighborhoods, where the bulk of Knoxville citizens live, raise their families and nurture their biggest investment.

Do we want to urbanize every inch of our community? Shouldn’t that be aired publicly?

The preface to Recode states: “Our current zoning ordinance is very rigid and, in some cases, prevents neighborhoods from achieving their full potential. An updated ordinance can protect the things we value about our neighborhoods and commercial areas while allowing the kinds of smart, sustainable growth that will move Knoxville forward.”

Recode’s three-goal caption is “Invest, Protect, Connect.” How does Recode meet its stated goal to protect?

Knoxville-Knox County Planning Executive Director Gerald Green’s pie charts (posted June 18 at recodeknoxville.com) show that 94 percent of residential property is still so classified, but they ignore the changes within those districts.

The citizens are looking to their elected city council representatives, not planners or the administration, to vet embedded policy shifts that may affect their lives and their investments.

Today’s Topics. For now, let’s focus more narrowly on three residential issues:

the decision to allow Group Homes, B&Bs and Domestic Violence Shelters as a permitted use in all R-zones;

the inclusion of Rehab Centers in Office, the traditional transition to adjoining residential zones; and

the already-debated deletion of restrictions on Cooking and Plumbing Facilities in accessory buildings not covered by the ADU restrictions.

Group Homes, etc., should be allowed by “Special Use.” Recode Draft 5+ authorizes placement of Group Homes as a “permitted use” in every residential zone. Such group homes include, by definition, the care of persons in need of supervision during drug and alcohol rehabilitation. A “permitted use” allows the applicant to go directly for a building permit, whereas a “special use” requires advance notice to neighbors, with a chance to be heard, much like the existing “Use on Review” process. Recode similarly treats “Bed and Breakfast” (EN and RN-1 to -3), “Daycare Homes” and “Domestic Violence Shelters” (all residential zones, p. 9-2) as permitted uses, allowed as of right. Why not make them all a special use?

Why a permitted use? Progressive philosophy? Avoiding the need to deal with pesky neighborhoods? Quicker yes, but such changes should occur only after someone has looked at the situation and considered input from those affected. A special use designation would provide affected neighbors with such an opportunity to be heard. (State law may complicate the Group Home issue, precluding SF zoning that denies access to individuals who are “retarded,” or “mentally or physically handicapped.” T.C.A. §13-24-101.)

“Drug/Alcohol Treatment Facility, Residential” doesn’t belong in Office. Traditionally, the Office zone has been considered a good transition to nearby residential zones because it is a less intense, less intrusive use than commercial or industrial. Yet Recode authorizes drug/alcohol treatment facilities as a special use in the Office zone.

The definition of a “Drug/Alcohol Treatment Facility, Residential” is set out at p. 2-9 (“A licensed care facility that provides 24-hour medical, non-medical and/or therapeutic care of persons seeking rehabilitation from a drug and/or alcohol addiction …”).

Community Forum, representing several neighborhood associations, asserts that the inclusion of this use in the proposed Office zone is inconsistent and wrong. It is, after all, a form of “hospital,” now called a “healthcare facility,” which is not allowed in the Office zone. Why the forced fit?

There are too many special situations that Recode presumes to resolve, without explanation. Perhaps planners “know best,” but a recommendation to city council should be accompanied by an explanation that enables a considered decision by the lawmakers, not just blind adoption. By state law, the planning commission “recommends”; the council must “consider” but need not follow those recommendations.

Skirting ADU restrictions? Draft 5, section 10.3.A.7 deleted the following restriction for non-ADU accessory buildings: “No accessory structure may contain cooking facilities or plumbing; however, the ground level of a detached garage may contain plumbing.” That deletion might inadvertently allow someone to skirt ADU requirements set out in a later subsection (Recode § 10.B.1-to-11).

While the inclusion of ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones has been controversial with neighborhoods, Knoxville City Council has decided to adopt it, adding restrictions like on-site owner occupancy, a 40 percent size limitation and on-site parking.

The issue here is whether non-ADU accessory buildings should be allowed to have amenities that might indirectly facilitate their use as an unregulated ADU or STR. The partial fix cobbled together at the last marathon council session addresses this, but it is not as good as the original deleted text. So, restore it.

Conclusion. Recode is a huge undertaking. Further study and reform of both the already-edited text (Draft 5+) and new map (Rev. 4) are needed before adoption. Practically speaking, the city has exhausted guidance from the planning commission. They’re outta gas.

The people are looking to city council to fully vet the underlying policy issues. Fix it or table it for now. “Haste makes waste.”

Nick Della Volpe is a lawyer and former Knoxville City Council member.