County worried about housing den

County worried about housing density

Hugh G. Willett news-herald.net

Loudon County Commission is paying more attention to the regulation of new residential development.

Commissioners voted 7-2 on Feb. 7 to extend a moratorium on Planned Unit Developments for six months as well as seek guidance from the Loudon County Planning Commission on multi-family homes.

The original PUD moratorium was passed Oct. 4. Current county regulation allows 2.5 housing units per acre for PUDs and requires at least 75 acres for consideration. An R-1 Residential District allows two units per acre.

Commissioner Bill Satterfield, who represents district 3, said the extension was necessary to complete public input meetings on the subject. In the three meetings already held, the public has been overwhelmingly against PUDs, he said.

“They know we’ll have growth but they are worried about uncontrolled growth,” Satterfield said.

He said residents have said they don’t want the county to look like west Knoxville or Hardin Valley.

Commissioners Mathew Tinker and Julia Hurley, both from district 2, voted against the motion in October and again last week.

Both said after the meeting that they voted against the extension because they believe a lot of people in their district like living in subdivisions.

“I represent Lenoir City,” Hurley said. “Most of my constituents live in PUDs and I represent my constituents.”

She said while she is concerned about what is best for Lenoir City residents, there are people all over the county who like to live in subdivisions. The mixed-use residential development proposed by Dover Signature Properties for the Loudon waterfront is an example, she said.

Tinker said he lives in a subdivision because he likes being in a closer community where his children can play with other nearby children. He also said people who work in local businesses need a place to live.

“It may not be for everybody, but when you talk to builders you find out that a lot of people don’t want one-acre lots,” he said.

Tinker also said he was concerned that zoning and commission put a lot of effort into developing criteria for PUDs. He said it didn’t make sense to stop the process or start over.

During public comment at the Feb. 7 meeting, Rodney Grugin, president of the Loudon County Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber had not changed positions since the October decision. The chamber strongly opposes extending the moratorium, he said.

“The chamber still supports responsible, controlled residential development that will provide the housing which will be necessary for the attraction and retention of the county’s future workforce,” Grugin said.

He said the organization maintains PUDs are necessary to achieve cost effective and fiscally responsible growth. Continuing the moratorium will negatively impact the organization’s membership sectors that rely on positive growth, such as Realtors, home builders and support businesses operating in the housing industry.

The chamber does support continued study to determine future housing needs to promote growth. The study needs to completed on a specific timeline, he said.

Hansen Sale, government affairs and policy director for the Knoxville Association of Realtors, which also represents Loudon County Realtors, said he was not in favor of the extension.

“As we said previously, the Knoxville Area Association of Realtors believe the PUD moratorium is extremely misguided and will have an enduring, adverse impact on the availability and affordability of housing in Loudon County,” Sale said. “Extending this moratorium is fiscally irresponsible and further jeopardizes the stability and growth potential of Loudon County’s economy and real estate industry.”

In a separate vote during the Feb. 7 meeting, commissioners unanimously agreed to send a request for clarification to the planning commission on density requirements for duplexes and multi-family dwellings.

Commissioner Van Shaver, who represents district 5, said he wanted more information on the dimensions and lot sizes permitted for such housing.

Shaver said he is concerned uncontrolled high-density development will bring more people into the county than can be supported. He said uncontrolled residential growth will overburden infrastructure, including roads, schools and other public facilities.

A typical property owner pays about $700 a year in property tax but places a much higher fiscal burden on the county, Shaver said. For example, a school-aged child costs the county about $5,000, he said.

“There is just no way the county can support uncontrolled growth,” Shaver said.

Satterfield said concerns about PUDs and multi-family homes fall under the same category as uncontrolled growth.

“Schools have to be provided, law enforcement and roads,” he said. “That increases property taxes.”

The county is proud to have such a low tax rate, Satterfield said, emphasizing unrestricted growth would not allow low taxes to continue.