Depositions reveal why PUD rejec

Members of Loudon County Commission said they voted with the people instead of following the recommendation of Loudon County Planning Commission on a subdivision rezoning request.

The county is now embroiled in a lawsuit stemming from the Sept. 7 denial by commission of a request to rezone 78 acres off U.S. Highway 321 from A-1 Agriculture Forestry District to R-1 PUD Suburban Residential.

The lawsuit, filed in Chancery Court in October, alleges the county decision was “illegal, arbitrary and capricious.” On June 7, attorneys representing John Cook and Heritage Land Development Partners LLC asked for summary judgment.

The answer to why commissioners would deny a rezoning request planners had voted 11-0 to approve was revealed during depositions taken for the lawsuit.

Attorneys for Cook questioned commissioners and the county codes and zoning department. The question of whether the decision was “arbitrary” was raised several times.

Commissioner Bill Satterfield, in whose district the rezoning was requested, was involved in the controversy from the beginning when adjacent property owners started to complain about the 200 new homes the development would bring.

During a deposition April 8, Satterfield said when he first spoke with Cook about the request Satterfield was fairly confident there would be no problem.

“At that time I didn’t see anything in the plans that I objected to or thought was bad,” Satterfield said. “I did at that time tell him that it looked like he had met the requirements for the planning and zoning commission.”

Satterfield said he knew Jim Jenkins, director of codes enforcement, had told the commission that everything the property owner or Cook needed to do to have the land rezoned had been completed.

In his deposition, Jenkins said it was the responsibility of his department to assess zoning requests and provide information to the planning commission, which then votes on the request and forwards the information to the county.

The attorney for the plaintiff asked Jenkins if it would be “arbitrary and capricious” for a commission to make a decision about a rezoning request before they had reviewed information on the request.

“I would hope that they would review the information prior to making their decision,” Jenkins replied.

“Would it trouble you if you knew that, on this particular instance, if you knew that a commissioner had already made up his mind on how to vote before they even saw your recommendations?” the attorney asked.

Jenkins replied he would prefer they see the information prior to making the decision.

“It’s just a matter of reviewing the documents and then making the decision from there,” he said.

Jenkins was also questioned about how often the county rejected a rezoning request that had passed the planning commission 11-0. Jenkins said the county has not always followed the recommendations of the planning commission.

Ingress and egress for the project was approved because the site was on a state highway, Jenkins said. The availability of sewer and water to the site was also a requirement for rezoning. Jenkins said he understood the sewer line was in the process of being extended and water was available.

When questioned about water and sewer availability, Satterfield said there was sewer but it was not operational and he was not certain when it would be. Water was available, but not directly to the property, he said.

In his deposition, Commissioner Van Shaver said the property did not meet the criteria for rezoning, specifically citing the availability of water and sewer. He also said rezoning would not be harmonious to the community.

“Part of the PUD regulations require it to be harmonious to the community,” Shaver said.

When asked about the definition of “harmonious,” Shaver responded, “When you are at a meeting with 50 residents of the community and they are opposed to it, I think that would mean it’s not harmonious.”

Commissioner Adam Waller said availability of sewer and water was a primary reason the request for rezoning was denied.

“All that goes into the equation,” Waller said. “I mean, that’s not — just because sewer is available doesn’t mean everything should be rezoned.”

Waller also said rezoning was denied because the project was not harmonious with the area.

“You should have seen the public and their outpour against this,” Waller said.

When asked about the job of the planning commission, Shaver said the group was supposed to make recommendations to the county.

“They have their job and we have ours,” he said.

Commission Chairman Henry Cullen was also questioned about the purpose of the planning commission.

“They review requests,” Cullen said, adding that the panel makes recommendations.

“Do you listen to those recommendations?” Cullen was asked.

“Sometimes,” he responded.

“And sometimes you don’t. Is that just an arbitrary decision?” he was asked.

“No. I listen to the people,” Cullen responded.

“So, listening to the people is more important than listening to the planning commission in your mind?”

“That’s who I serve,” Cullen said.

When asked what information from the planning commission he did take into consideration, Cullen said he focused on infrastructure, including water, sewer and road access, but he listened more to the people.

“The bottom line, sir, is the people didn’t want it,” Cullen said. “And they have a right to speak.”