PUD moratorium becomes permanent

Loudon County Commission approved Monday a permanent ban on Planned Unit Developments but failed in an attempt to remove appointed members of the Loudon County Solid Waste Disposal Commission.

Commissioners signaled an intent to make the PUD ban permanent after Loudon County Planning Commission voted 9-2 last month to end high-density residential developments. A temporary ban has been in place since October.

PUD regulations previously allowed up to 2.5 housing units per acre on a minimum total development of 75 acres. Under the ban, developers were limited to two homes per acre.

The moratorium was a hot issue during the May primary election. Several commissioners supporting PUDs were not elected, while proponents of the ban won big in their districts.

A lawsuit filed against the county by John Cook, a developer who was denied a PUD rezoning request last year, has been working its way through the court system. Cook’s attorneys recently filed for summary judgment in the case.

Commissioner Bill Satterfield made the motion to permanently remove PUDs from zoning options in the county. Commissioner Van Shaver seconded the motion.

The measure passed on a 6-3 vote with Commissioners Julia Hurley, Matthew Tinker and Kelly Littleton-Brewster voting “no.” Commissioners Adam Waller, Harold Duff, Henry Cullen, Gary Whitfield, Satterfield and Shaver supported the ban.

Littleton-Brewster questioned whether commission should be working on a long-range plan to allow more flexibility on future residential construction.

“Do we just shut them off?” she asked.

Tinker said said he was for controlled growth but thought the permanent ban was an overreach by the commission. The county worked to set up standards for the planning commission to regulate residential development, he said.

He said the permanent ban could limit housing choices and hurt growth of new business.

“People around here want movie theaters and Outback restaurants,” Tinker said. “If they do not have enough people, those businesses won’t come.”

Tinker said too much growth too fast could be a problem, but lack of growth could equally be a problem. He said the county needs tax revenue from housing and the businesses that will follow residential growth.

In what was undoubtedly the most controversial issue raised during the meeting, commission failed to pass a motion made by Shaver to vacate all five county representatives on the LCSWDC.

The motion failed 5-4, with Shaver, Waller, Duff, Cullen and Satterfield voting “yes” and Whitfield, Hurley, Tinker and Littleton-Brewster voting “no.” Commissioner David Meers was not present.

Had the motion passed, Pat Hunter, Littleton-Brewster, Larry Jameson, Steve Field and Terry Small would have been removed from the panel that oversees solid waste disposal in the county. Of the five, Hunter was the only member vocally opposing an updated, long-term contract extension with Republic Services to manage Matlock Bend Landfill.

Critics of the contract have said Republic makes most of the money from the landfill and has the rights to set tipping fees for stakeholders, including the county, Lenoir City and Loudon.

All three stakeholders have reviewed the contract. Lenoir City and Loudon both gave approval with minor reservations about tipping fees.

Those who back the contract extension point out it removes the county from $13 million in post-closure liability. Under the new contract, Republic would have sole responsibility for the cost of closing the landfill.

Shaver placed the item on the agenda as “consideration of any actions deemed necessary pertaining to the landfill operation contract extension.” During the workshop, he questioned Little-Brewster on the intentions of the LCSWDC.

Shaver said he viewed a recent meeting of the group and said it was obvious they would vote July 12 to approve the extension with Republic. He said he was reluctant to take action but could see no other way to limit the LCSWDC.

“We either sign a bad extension or stay in a bad contract,” Shaver said.

Littleton-Brewster, who is also chairwoman of the LCSWDC, said the seven-person commission had reviewed the requests of the county and the two other stakeholders. She said there was no way to take action on stakeholder concerns because Republic had declined to reopen contract negotiations.

She said she was surprised to hear commissioners second-guessing the decisions of the LCSWDC after expressing interest in the contract in the last few months.

Tinker, one of the votes against the motion, said he thought the contract could be improved but did not feel comfortable removing members who had worked eight years to renegotiate the contract. He said he was hoping new members of the LCSWC and county commission could work together better in the future.