09/13/2022
Fact Sheet & Talking Points Blount County Proposed Zoning Amendments
The following are suggested talking points for members wishing to communicate with elected officials and other stakeholders about the proposed zoning amendments in Blount County.
What is the Proposal?
The proposed zoning amendments would vastly decrease new housing development by increasing the minimum lot size requirements for the Suburbanizing and R-1 districts. The table below is a comparison between the current regulations and the proposed changes.
Existing and Proposed Minimum Lot Size Requirements (S and R-1 Districts)
Suburbanizing District
Minimum Lot Size (with septic)
Minimum Lot Size (with sewer)
R-1 District
Minimum Lot Size (with septic)
Minimum Lot Size (with sewer)
Existing Requirement
30,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft.
Existing Requirement
30,000 sq. ft. 23,000 sq. ft.
Proposed Requirement
32,670 sq. ft. 29,185 sq. ft.
Proposed Requirement
32,670 sq. ft. 32,670 sq. ft.
Difference in Square Feet (percentage)
+2,670 sq. ft. (+8.9%) +22,185 sq. ft. (+416.9%)
Difference in Square Feet (percentage)
+2,670 sq. ft. (+8.9%) +9,679 sq. ft. (+42%)
As written, the proposed amendments do not change where development occurs or what land is developable.
This proposal “puts the cart before the horse.” The County has already committed a substantial amount of money to hire a consultant to update its comprehensive land use plan. It does not make logical sense to make substantial changes to the zoning code prior to adopting a new comprehensive land use plan, which will involve an expensive public process designed to study this very issue. In addition, the proposed amendments to minimum lot sizes specifically have involved little-to-no public process and were devised behind closed doors.
Increasing minimum lot sizes will increase land consumption and lead to the loss of even more open space and farmland. Studies show that inefficient land use, not
economic growth, is the primary cause of the rapid loss of open space and farmland in rural communities. The most obvious example is the drastic increase proposed for lots in the Suburbanizing district that are served by public sewer (from 7,000 square feet to 29,185 square feet), which would result in single-family development consuming more than four times as much land area per dwelling unit than the current standard. In other words, more land will be required to build the same number of houses.
The proposed amendments eliminate the only incentive (density) for developers to locate new development in denser areas where sewer is available and push development into more rural parts of the County. If denser areas with access to sewer are treated the same as less dense parts of the county, it will have the effect of incentivizing developers to build more single-family housing in more rural parts of the county where land costs are lower and only septic is available. It’s important to preserve open space and natural beauty, but these proposed amendments will not accomplish those goals and will actually have the opposite effect.
The proposal infringes on private property rights by reducing the value of undeveloped land and limiting owners’ right to determine the best use of their property. The proposed zoning amendments substantially alters development rights in the affected districts and reduces permitted density by as much as 75% in some cases. As a result, owners of developable property should reasonably expect to see a decline in the value of their property – essentially “stealing” part of the property value from owners. Should the County compensate owners for the reduction in value that the County was directly responsible for?
At the very least, ALL property owners in affected areas whose property value may be impacted should be notified before any change in zoning is considered.
This proposal will worsen housing affordability. There are less than 300 active listings in Blount County as of today – a county with more than 130,000 people. Merely reducing density in this way will only make what housing gets built more expensive, worsening housing affordability and harming future generations of Blount County residents and their ability to afford to live in the place they grew up.
Questions For Consideration
• Has the Commission prepared a detailed analysis of the potential impact of this proposal on property values, the housing market, and the real estate industry? Has the Commission truly done its due diligence?
• Has the Commission prepared an analysis or evaluated the potential impact this change will have on the County budget given the proposal would limit the County’s ability to generate new property tax revenue through housing development?
• Has the Commission considered the potentially unintended consequences of this proposal, which likely to lead to the consumption of more open space and farmland?
• Has the Commission considered the impact of this proposal on property owners and the extent to which it takes away a substantial portion of their property’s value? Should those owners be compensated for the lost value?
Feel free to use these talking points as a guide but please remember that your own personal perspective if often the most valuable.
