Hamilton County commissioners on June 18 voted to table two companion resolutions (625-59 and 625-60) that would have adopted Plan Hamilton as the county's regional development plan, after several hours of debate and extensive public comment.

The vote to table was moved by Commissioner Mark Graham and seconded by Commissioner Sharp; the roll call produced a majority in favor and the chair declared both items tabled. The decision pauses consideration of the plan while commissioners and staff continue outreach and revisions.

Plan Hamilton is intended as a future-land-use guide for unincorporated Hamilton County. Supporters of tabling said more work was needed to reconcile competing priorities—farm preservation, new housing and economic development—especially for properties such as McDonald Farm in northern Hamilton County. Opponents had urged adoption to provide a predictable framework for growth.

Nathan Janeway, Hamilton County's development services director, explained a major point raised in the debate: manufacturing projects that issue statewide requests for information (RFIs) typically require sites that are pad-ready, already under local control and zoned for industry. Janeway said such projects often need short construction start windows and cited recent examples: "The project only required 80 acres," Janeway said, adding that sites that are not already engineered and zoned can lose opportunities. He said Enterprise South remains the only industrial property in the county with the required infrastructure and zoning already in place.

Concerns about McDonald Farm were raised repeatedly. County leaders and the mayor said converting the farm into a pad-ready industrial site would demand large public and private investment. The mayor noted that "to move any dirt, to make any site ready at McDonald Farm, that dollar amount begins at about $100,000,000," and that making 500 acres pad-ready can exceed $200,000,000. Those costs, and the lack of existing infrastructure, were central to the argument that McDonald Farm had not been a realistic candidate for recent major economic solicitations.

Commissioner Richard Baker proposed amending the Plan Hamilton language to change the way developable area is calculated in one planning district (Area 7) from gross acreage to net acreage—excluding water bodies, karst, mines, steep slopes and certain infrastructure easements. Baker's amendment was seconded and then broadened by motion to cover the entire county; the change was debated but not adopted before the motion to table carried.

Karen (RPA staff) and other planning staff told the commission that the Plan Hamilton document does discuss farming and rural character, and that zoning protections, including the state Farmland Protection Act, remain in force regardless of the plan's place-type language. "That zoning for that farm would continue," RPA staff said, referencing A-1 agricultural zoning and state protections.

Public comment was lengthy and strongly focused on farmland protection, traffic and infrastructure. Dozens of speakers from Sale Creek, Birchwood, Ooltewah, Signal Mountain and other unincorporated areas asked commissioners to preserve farmland and rural character. The McDonald Farm advisory committee and local conservation groups urged protecting the property and emphasized agritourism and greenway potential.

Commissioners and the mayor repeatedly urged accurate public information. The mayor said some public accounts had misrepresented project scale and timing and called for separating economic-development RFIs from the county's land-use planning conversation. "We were not a candidate for it in any way, shape, or form," the mayor said of a recent RFI tied to large industrial investment.

What happens next: with both Plan Hamilton items tabled, commissioners and staff signaled continued outreach and study. Several commissioners asked staff for additional studies, including an impact study on whether McDonald Farm could support a specific project cited in public discussion. Nathan Janeway said staff could produce an impact assessment and return it to the commission.

The tabled items will return to a future commission meeting for further consideration; no date was established in the meeting minutes.