Depositions show meeting disorde

Confusion reigned at a Sept. 7 meeting of Loudon County Commission where a rezoning request was denied on a second vote after an apparent misunderstanding about the first vote.

A lawsuit filed in Chancery Court in October by John Cook and Heritage Land Development Partners LLC against the county accuses the commission of illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously denying the request. A motion for summary judgment in the case was filed June 7.

Lawyers for the plaintiff attempted to gain clarity about what happened at the meeting during a recent series of depositions involving commissioners.

According to minutes of the meeting, Commissioner Bill Satterfield made a motion to request the zoning resolution amendment be denied. Commissioners Satterfield, Harold Duff, Van Shaver and Adam Waller voted “yes” to deny, while Commissioners David Meers, Julia Hurley, Matthew Tinker, Gary Whitfield, Henry Cullen and Kelly Littleton-Brewster voted “no.” The motion failed 6-4.

According to the minutes, Meers and Cullen realized they voted opposite of their intentions. Meers had in fact said before his vote that he was going to follow the wishes of the community.

The meeting then broke out in uncontrolled discussion between commissioners about whether or not the rezone had passed and whether or not the motion could be revoted. After consultation by phone with the county attorney, it was determined one of the six who voted in favor of the motion to deny could make a motion to reconsider the vote.

Cullen made a motion to reconsider the vote, with Waller seconding. Satterfield, Cullen, Duff, Shaver, Waller and Meers voted “yes.” Hurley, Tinker, Whitfield and Littleton-Brewster voted “no.” The motion passed 6-4.

Tinker then made a motion to approve the rezoning resolution, with Hurley seconding. Tinker, Whitfield, Littleton-Brewster, Meers and Hurley voted “yes.” Satterfield, Duff, Shaver, Waller and Cullen voted “no.” The motion failed 5-5.

Codes enforcement officer Jim Jenkins said under deposition that he initially understood the request to rezone had passed. The attorney for the plaintiff also asked Jenkins if Duff had asked Shaver how to vote on the request.

“I don’t remember, just him saying, ‘How do I need to vote on this?’,” Jenkins responded.

Cullen said he had not communicated with any commissioners about the rezone before the vote. Cullen was also asked whether Duff and Shaver had communicated about the rezone vote.

“Not that I recall,” Cullen said.

Shortly after the first vote was made to deny the rezoning, Satterfield apologized to constituents, saying he was sorry the development had won out.

Waller disagreed.

“The motion to deny failed,” Waller said. “There was never a motion to approve.”

“What’s the difference?” Waller was asked under deposition.

“Big difference,” Waller said. “It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It’s approval or disapproval. There never was a motion to approve.”

Waller added that when he listened to Meers speak about how he was with the people and voted “no,” Waller said he realized Meers actually meant to have voted “yes” to deny.

Waller was also questioned by attorneys for the plaintiff about whether Duff asked Shaver how to vote.

“I know at one point Harold asked Van something, but I didn’t hear what he said,” Waller responded.

Pushed to answer the specific question of what Shaver told Duff, Waller said he did not know.

Satterfield said he knew Duff spoke with Shaver about the vote but said he did not remember Duff asking Shaver how to vote.

“I just remember him asking about what the vote — what the topic was being discussed, I’m trying to remember who said — about the vote maybe we had just taken,” Satterfield said. “I’m not 100% sure of his exact words that were said to Mr. Shaver.”

Under deposition, Shaver said he did not communicate with other commissioners about the vote on the rezone except for what might have occurred at a community meeting in Glendale before the vote. He said he did not discuss, debate or deliberate to conclusion anything that came before commissioners.

Shaver said he did have conversation with Duff and Waller before the vote but that it was not about the merits and whether to approve or not approve the rezoning.

Shaver said the vote was 6-4 not to take Satterfield’s motion to deny rezoning. “So that didn’t approve anything,” Shaver said.

Under further questioning, Shaver was asked to confirm that the 6-4 vote to not deny zoning does not mean the motion was approved.

“Absolutely,” Shaver said. “That’s correct.”

He said commission must have a positive to pass anything.

“We’ve never passed anything on a 6-4 fail,” Shaver said.

Shaver was asked why Satterfield would apologize to constituents as if indicating the development won out.

Shaver said he could not know what Satterfield was thinking.

“My belief was that if six voted not to take his denial then when the vote came up for approval there would be six to vote for approval,” Shaver said.

Under further questioning, Shaver insisted commission had not approved the rezoning but admitted he might have been confused in his previous response about how many would have voted for approval.

Asked if Duff had problems concentrating in meetings, Shaver said he had no idea. He also denied Duff asked him how to vote.

“I absolutely did not hear Commissioner Duff asking me how to vote nor did I tell Commissioner Duff how to vote,” Shaver said.