Hamilton County officials, angry over Signal Mountain’s decision to repeal a controversial rezoning, can get even by blocking the sale of the community’s old middle school, the town’s representative on the county commission said Monday night.

“We’re going to discuss (the proposed sale of the school at the next commission meeting),” Commissioner Richard Casavant told the standing-room-only crowd at the town council meeting.

“And after being messed over by the council (on the Shackleford Ridge Overlay Zone), they’re not going to be very happy with the Signal Mountain Town Council,” he said.

In other action, the council voted 5-0 to continue a ban on guns in Signal Mountain parks.

Commissioner Casavant’s remarks came during the first of two public hearings on the town council’s agenda, when residents discussed whether the old middle school property should be rezoned so it can be transformed into a fitness center.

A second hearing – this one on whether to rescind the controversial rezoning which led to the recall of two members of the council at the time the rezoning was approved – followed soon afterward.

Shortly after that hearing, disregarding Commissioner Casavant’s warnings, town council members voted to do away with SROZ.

During the hearing on the fate of the old school, the county commissioner attacked the deal in which Tom Poteet submitted the winning bid on the property. He was the only bidder.

School officials accepted Mr. Poteet's offer to buy the school for $800,000 in cash and two lots adjoining Soddy Daisy High School .

Monday night, he indicated he will probably have to spend another $250,000 to $400,000 removing asbestos and making extensive repairs and renovations that the building sorely needs.

The school board made the right decision, according to several members of the audience.

“I agree that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” one man said.

But Noah Long, who helped develop the town’s land use plan, disagreed.

“This is totally incompatible with our land use plan . . . It’s obvious that you’re trying to bend over backwards . . . to make something happen that in my view is totally inappropriate,” he thundered.

It wasn’t until this past Thursday, Commissioner Casavant said, that he learned that the county is part owner of the former school property – and therefore entitled to help decide whether it should be sold.

He’ll do everything he can to prevent that sale, he said, “and that complicates my life because (Commissioner Fred Skillern of Soddy Daisy) wants this done.”

If officials rejected Mr. Poteet’s offer and held onto the property for a couple of years, he said, the school system can get a lot more money for it.

Most people in the crowd were unimpressed.

“The county owned part of that land and you didn’t even know it?” one man asked. “What does that tell you?”

Another, who said his yard abuts the school’s old football field, indicated he initially was skeptical of the plan to transform the property into a fitness center, but now supports it.

“I understand the County Commission is trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works,” he said. “But we held a series of carefully crafted public meetings up here and came up with a plan . . . I believe this is probably about the best we can do.”

It was Commissioner Casavant’s turn to be unimpressed.

“Mr. Poteet ought to be a politician,” he said sarcastically. “He’s engineered a remarkable situation.”

Town council members said they favor Mr. Poteet’s proposal to upgrade and convert the building into a fitness center because a majority of residents like that concept.

During a series of five public meetings, Mayor Bill Lusk noted, most people said they opposed rezoning the property for commercial or high density residential uses.

They favored maintaining the residential flavor of the neighborhood in which it is located, and virtually everybody wanted the school’s track – which has long been utilized by residents of all ages, not just middle school students – to remain.

Mr. Poteet’s offer makes all that possible, the mayor said.

Had Commissioner Casavant attended one or more of those public meetings, he noted, he would have heard for himself what residents of the town favored.

“We invited you,” he reminded the county commissioner.

“I thought those hearings were presumptuous,” Commissioner Casavant snapped. “It wasn’t your property.”

During the hearing, Dr. Paul Hendricks of the council made this statement:

"I would like to try to bring a little focus to this hearing and hopefully save us all some time. In spite of the name-calling and misrepresentations, there has always been unanimity on this council about doing away with the Shackleford Ridge Ordinances. Our only real difference has been on timing. The Planning Commission is recommending we do this now. I have always advocated waiting until we are ready to replace these ordinances with Conservation Zoning. Therefore I want to make the following proposal: That we accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission to repeal the SROZ, but not the recommendation on replacement zoning.

"The statements from the Council and the letters to the editor that I have seen have all supported replacing these ordinances with Conservation Zoning. Two years ago we went through an extensive year-long process of re-writing our land use plan. This is our guiding document for land use in this town. It has been suggested that it is unfair to have different zoning in one place than another, especially in the SR area, yet that is exactly what the land use plan recommends, a different zoning regimen for developing areas vs. infill in already developed areas. I do not remember anyone mentioning that this was unfair when the land use plan was passed. Also, the land use plan recommends conservation zoning as the preferred alternative in the SR area. The resolution from the planning commission recommends larger lot sizes and no open space requirements. The resolution gives no reason or justification for doing this. This is not conservation zoning and therefore this proposal is a violation of the land use plan and I cannot accept it. If we repeal these ordinances, the only open space option available is the current one on our books which only requires 25% open space and allows ¼ acre lots with a 5% density bonus. While it’s a bit confusing, that allows a density of about 2 ¾ homes per acre as a consequence of this proposed repeal.

"Another important issue to consider is that of preferring sewers over septic. This was eloquently argued at the PC meeting by Dr. Urban but it is unclear whether his comments were given any discussion or consideration. Considering the problems this town has had with polluted streams, this has been generally accepted as the preferred method of development. Again the land use plan states “future growth on septic systems or other non-sewer systems, especially in developing areas is to be highly discouraged…”. Already the PC has approved one new subdivision on SR using septic tanks. Sewer infrastructure is expensive and must be paid for. This is not a zero-sum game. If you are here to argue against any development in the SR area, you may as well save your breath. That is unconstitutional and not in the power of this Council. The only argument is what kind of development we want. I have advocated replacing the SROZ with conservation development on sewers since I ran for office. The Land Use Plan advocates conservation zoning as the preferred method of development. Randall Arendt, whose advice to the town is referenced in the appendix to the Land Use Plan advocates Conservation Zoning and states the following in regard to our land us policies:

“'Regarding the zoning, the most critical deficiencies in my view are that it does not appear to allow flexible lot sizes (essentially precluding conservation design)…Signal Mountain, like many other municipalities, commits the fundamental error of regulating density through the indirect method of setting minimum lot sizes. This counter-productive approach unintentionally robs the community of the very resource lands that give it its special rural character. Instead, I have long advocated regulating density directly…'

"This is my proposal.

"Now, on timing… The Shackleford Ridge Ordinances only apply to sewered lots. The Town of Signal Mountain is currently under a sewer moratorium. Until that moratorium is lifted there is effectively no SROZ. Our own representative on the sewer authority, our town manager Honna Rogers, has stated that the most optimistic estimates of the WWTA is that it will last another 1½ - 2 years. [“is that correct, Honna?”] Dr. Dick Urban, local head of TDEC which placed the moratorium estimates a minimum of 2-3 years.[“Dick, am I accurate on that?”] I’m not sure who would be more authoritative on this issue than those two entities, WWTA and TDEC. While the WWTA is making progress with securing ROW, they do not yet even have permission to tie on to Moccasin Bend treatment plant. So it would seem the SROZ is essentially non-existent for at least another 2 years. I don’t understand the need for speed.

"So, I would recommend that the Council accept the PC’s recommendation on repeal of the SROZ, but refer the issue back to the PC for further study and request that they return to us a plan for Conservation zoning. I would suggest we give them 6 months for this project and suggest that if by some miracle the sewer moratorium is lifted during that six months that the PC and Council request a moratorium on new subdivision approval under the SROZ for the duration of that 6 months. I have some recommendations for general parameters for such zoning, but will defer that discussion until an appropriate time. I would also suggest that we offer the PC the option of hiring an expert in writing conservation zoning regulations, I would recommend Mr. Arendt, but would defer to the PC on this and bend the budget somewhere to pay for such a consultant.

"So, if you are here to argue for repeal of the SROZ, you can save your breath, you’re singing to the choir. Rather, I would like to ask those of you speaking today to comment specifically on what kind of zoning you prefer in the SR area if the SROZ is repealed and why and would respectfully ask what you think of my proposal. Thank you."