County presses city on annexatio

Loudon County and Lenoir City appear headed for a fight over unincorporated land the city recently voted to annex.

Several dozen residents attended the Dec. 5 meeting of Loudon County Commission to protest the annexation of about 24 acres on State Highway 70. The land lies outside an urban growth boundary that limits how far Lenoir City can reach.

Later in the meeting after requests from residents for the county to take action, commissioners voted 8-1 to authorize the county attorney to communicate with Lenoir City’s attorney and take all appropriate actions needed to void the annexation.

Lenoir City Administrator Amber Kelso addressed commission before the vote. She said Lenoir City did not seek the annexation but responded to a request from the property owner.

She also cautioned against litigation.

“As you know, if the county were to file litigation against the city with regard to this, the only winners will be the attorneys, and the taxpayers, both city and county, will be the losers,” Kelso said.

She asked commissioners if the county attorney advised that the county had no standing in the matter and the only party being potentially harmed is the property owner requesting annexation.

“The city believes that we should not be in the business of telling people what they shall and shall not do with their property, and we think the county should agree with us on that,” Kelso said.

Dan Smith, a Greenback resident and owner of the 24 acres, said he is looking to improve the value of the land through annexation. He said the county property has depreciated because of a moratorium on high-density development.

The county enacted late in 2021 a moratorium on developments with more than two units per acre. The moratorium was extended and made permanent this year.

Rio Valeriano, owner of a cattle ranch adjacent to the annexed property, also addressed commissioners before the vote. His “free range” cattle ranch is not compatible with a subdivision next door, he said.

He said he located his ranch and home in the county specifically because he wanted protection against a “land grab” by Lenoir City. He urged commission to take action to reverse the annexation.

Valeriano said Lenoir City did not properly notice residents in the area that the land was being annexed, adding that a required public notice was printed in the “smut sheet.”

Kelso confirmed notice of the public hearing was advertised Oct. 28 in the Daily Edition, which is distributed in limited numbers at a few convenience stores and primarily contains arrest records. The Tennessee Open Records Law requires public meetings be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation.

Advertising the public hearing in a publication not widely circulated in the community is “not in compliance with the spirit of the requirement for public notice,” Valeriano said.

He also said he had a phone discussion with Smith that led him to believe Smith had spoken with Travis Fuller and Mike Ross, both developers, about the sale of his property.

Smith denied during the meeting he had been in discussions with developers about a sale. Attempts to reach Ross and Fuller were not successful.

Commissioner Van Shaver, who represents district 5 in which the disputed land lies, said Public Chapter 1101, codified in 2000, limits annexation in the UGB to land contiguous with a tract already annexed by the municipality and with the same owner.

Shaver said the land in question is contiguous to the Belle West subdivision inside city limits but is owned by a different entity.

An interlocal agreement, created in 2005, exists between the county and Lenoir City that further limits annexation outside the UGB and requires approval of the annexation by the county, Shaver said.

Commissioners discussed if the resolution for the county attorney to take action was authorization for a lawsuit against Lenoir City. Shaver said Lenoir City’s actions were “illegal” and needed to be reversed.

“The simple solution is to back it up and do it right,” Shaver said.

Commissioner Bill Satterfield said he understood the county would ask its attorney to speak with the Lenoir City attorney.

“We are not filing a lawsuit,” he said.

Commissioner Rosemary Quillen, who represents Lenoir City in district 2, said she was hesitant to get into a lawsuit over the matter. She questioned Shaver repeatedly about the need to have an attorney involved. She did vote for the resolution.

William Jenkins, who also represents Lenoir City in district 2, questioned Shaver about the interlocal agreement and whether it had been updated since originally created.

Shaver said he was not aware of any updates.

Jenkins did not vote for the resolution. He said after the meeting he was concerned the issue was heading toward a lawsuit.

County Mayor Rollen “Buddy” Bradshaw said in discussions with the county attorney they determined there might be a conflict of interest between the county attorney’s law firm and work the firm performed for Lenoir City. Bradshaw said it would be necessary to use outside legal counsel.

Bradshaw sent a letter last week to Lenoir City Mayor Tony Aikens advising “the Loudon County Commission has directed me to take any and all actions up to and including legal action to challenge this annexation.” The letter asks Lenoir City Council to “reconsider the annexation and its necessity for the welfare of the city.”

He also requested the city follow “the prescribed laws for annexing outside the city’s urban growth boundary.”