Winning the election more import

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Loudon County Commission over the denial of a rezoning request have filed for summary judgment in the case.

Originally filed in October, the lawsuit stems from a Sept. 7 meeting where commissioners voted 5-5 to deny rezoning of property off U.S. Highway 321 that would have become a subdivision permitted as a planned unit development.

Cook Bros. Construction alleges the county illegally denied the request.

John Cook and Heritage Land Development Partners LLC filed the motion June 7 in Chancery Court supported by depositions from five county commissioners, a county official and the owner of the property.

“The undisputed facts prove that Loudon County Commission’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ rezoning request was illegal, arbitrary and capricious,” according to the motion.

The plaintiffs want the court to order the rezoning of the property from A-1 to R-1 with a PUD overlay and “other relief as the court may deem warranted, including attorney’s fees.”

Attorneys for neither side could be reached for comment.

Depositions filed with the case provide insight into the decision-making process of some commissioners before the Sept. 7 vote.

Commissioner Bill Satterfield, who represents District 3 where the property is located, was deposed April 8. He said he initially believed the rezoning would not be an issue. He changed his mind when he heard from constituents, including neighbors of the property.

“Once they found out what was going on, they objected to it strenuously,” Satterfield said.

He said additional meetings in the community convinced him there was much opposition to the project.

Satterfield said he had a meeting with Jim Russell, owner of the property, and County Commissioner Kelly Littleton-Brewster at a real estate office in Tellico Village before the Sept. 7 meeting and vote. Satterfield said Littleton-Brewster contacted him about the meeting so Russell could speak with him about the rezoning.

Russell said sale of the property for $1.25 million was contingent on the rezoning. Russell was concerned because Satterfield reportedly said he would not vote for the change.

Littleton-Brewster said she had known Russell since high school and that he was a constituent in District 1.

“I wanted Mr. Satterfield to see or to listen to Mr. Russell’s reasons for selling the property,” Littleton-Brewster said.

The meeting between two county commissioners before a vote on an issue before commission might be a violation of the Sunshine Law if commissioners met to deliberate the issue, Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, said.

If the purpose of the meeting was to facilitate Russell speaking to Satterfield, the meeting would not be a violation, Fisher said.

In his deposition, Russell said Littleton-Brewster didn’t say anything during the meeting.

Satterfield went on to explain in his deposition that he told Russell he opposed the rezoning because it was an election year and voters in his district were opposed to the plan.

“I told him that I probably would not get any votes if I didn’t support the people,” Satterfield said.

He admitted telling Russell a lawsuit against the county was problematic but denied suggesting Russell should file a lawsuit.

“I just said that we would — we would not — probably not be able to sustain a lawsuit or win at that time,” Satterfield said.

Russell said Satterfield told him, “I need those votes. Election is coming up. You let us deny your zoning, you can sue the county, and you will get what you want and I will get what I want.”

Littleton-Brewster said her recollection of the meeting was similar to Russell’s in that Satterfield said he needed the votes in his district and Russell could sue the county later to get his rezoning. She said she was shocked when she heard the statement.

“It’s just not a statement that I felt I would make or be appropriate,” Littleton-Brewster said.

“And I looked at him and said, ‘What about attorney’s fees and court costs that the people of this county is going to have to pay?’” Russell said. “Again, folding his arms, (Satterfield) looked at me and said, ‘That’s what the money is there for’.”

A hearing on the motion is set for Aug. 9, Brandon Morrow, attorney with the law firm Kramer-Rayson LLP, which is representing the county, said. Morrow said the county will file a response five days before the hearing in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.