A 7-1 vote from Loudon County Commission, preceded by developers pleading their case and certain property owners defending theirs, effectively extended the moratorium on certain development regulations at their December 15 special-called meeting. The proposal, while basic in its language, could imply a continuation of strict growth guidelines the Commission has been forging for the past several years.
The moratorium sets a pause on the approval of subdivision style communities that are connected to County roads with a width of less than 20 feet when measured from inside white line to inside white line. “Subdivisions,” as described on the agenda of the November 17 workshop concerning the issue, is set to be defined as groupings of 10 or more residential units in one area.
The move comes in the midst of ongoing litigation, appeals and further action from the County regarding their defense in a lawsuit with John Cook, a home developer based out of West Knoxville. After buying a sizable portion of property on Cusick Circle, Cook said he was barred from fully realizing the 13-unit subdivision he had mapped out due to the County passing a similar proposal back in 2024 that he claims he was virtually unaware of at the time of purchase.
After Judge Tom McFarland ruled in Cook’s favor, stating that the procedures Commission conducted surrounding the development were found to be in poor practice, the body went back to the drawing board with the help of County Attorney Bob Bowman. Under Bowman’s guidance, a new, updated version of the old moratorium was proposed and passed in order to “stop right here and collectively hold our breath until we find out what we can do,” said County Commissioner Van Shaver at the December 15 session.
Naturally, dissent has arisen from home builders and realtors looking to nab pieces of property in one of East Tennessee’s most booming regions, but they say their worries aren’t entirely bottom line driven. Maria McHale, the Govermental Affairs & Policy Director for East Tennessee Realtors, took to the podium to address growing concerns around affordability should more limitations be placed on top of current regulations. While the moratorium isn’t a direct ban on development, she and other home builders in the area think that it could bring unwanted side effects to a county prioritizing preservation.
“A moratorium on building does not stop people from moving here,” McHale said. “All it does is take the few spots that are left, pushes out the families that are here, who can’t afford it, and brings in people with more money and resources.”
Scarcity, in a lot of ways, seems to be a big concern for home builders who presented their case to the podium. Aside from McHale’s remarks regarding the demographic changes that could be seen by stricter regulations, home builder Mark White cited maybe the most notable symptom of stricter guidelines. White, according to his own personal experience, said that he’s seeing houses that cost a little over $300,000 ten years ago now creeping into seven figure value numbers in some cases. White even went as far as to call the new regulations a “cop out” in place of more permanent, defined ordinances.
But representatives from the County see it another way.
Commissioner Shaver stressed that, while the moratorium limits the size of some subdivisions, housing and development is still an option for residents and manufacturers looking to purchase and own property within their county limits. As far as potential findings and next steps, Shaver stated that the point of the action was to give some wiggle room and see what was possible, as well as what was desired.
Several commissioners stated in their remarks before the vote that the larger issue of controlled growth was one that this iteration of the body was almost unilaterally supported on by their constituents, with preserving farmland and natural resources a huge concern for most lifelong residents. A majority of the Commission stressed that their worries pertained more to their voters than their suppliers of infrastructure, this move acting as an attempt to study the issue more in depth.
“After we [passed the moratorium] the first time, it was the attorneys who said ‘it’s not that simple,’” Shaver explained.
“Can we allow a developer to widen a road? We don’t know. All the questions about easements and all that, I can tell you this: Loudon County won’t be paying to widen any roads for developers, that I’ll guarantee.”
The moratorium is set to last for six months, with an option to extend it another six months should another proposal to do so be met with a vote of approval in June.
In other news, Loudon County Commission discussed:
• A rezone on El Camino Lane, to potentially turn a general industrial district into a community facilities district.
• A rezone on Steekee Road, potentially turning an agriculture forestry district into a developing agricultural district.
• A rezone on Fairview Road, possibly moving an agriculture forestry district into a developing agriculture district.
• A potential rezone on Vonore Road, moving a rural residential district to a developing agriculture district.
• Possible implementation of the Smoky Mountain Offender Tracking System, potentially having the service act as an electronic monitoring provider for Loudon County.
• The possibility of using a third-party vendor to assist with the property assessment process.
• Provided updates regarding the annexation of the Weigel’s bakery property in Loudon.
The Loudon County Commission will reconvene on Monday, January 5, 2026, at 6 p.m. in the Courthouse Annex.
