Area 9 citizens present compromise for Plan Hamilton, urge commissioners to delay home‑builders’ amendments

Don Johnson, an Ooltewah resident and member of an Area 9 citizens committee, presented a rewritten Area 9 section of Plan Hamilton to the Hamilton County Commission on June 11, asking commissioners to adopt the citizens’ compromise and to postpone several home‑builders’ amendments.

The committee’s compromise, Johnson said, keeps A‑1 zoning at roughly two houses per acre, allows limited 2.5 units-per‑acre in areas adjacent to sewer service, permits some suburban residential at about five units per acre, and does not include apartments. “We respectfully request that when it comes time to vote on the plan that Area 9 and all the other plans should be approved by the commission,” Johnson said.

Greg Lewis, also a presenter and an Area 9 resident, told commissioners the group benchmarked other fast‑growing Tennessee counties and found that Hamilton County’s allowed rural densities are higher than many peers. Lewis cited a passage from a county study, saying it “does not include longer term capital needs, deferred maintenance, and other future financial impacts related to growth and development in Hamilton County,” and warned commissioners to consider full lifecycle infrastructure costs before accelerating rezoning.

Commissioners asked detailed questions. Commissioner Baker requested a closer look at comparison slides and later raised county funding shortfalls: “Currently, we have $500,000,000 in needs for sewers and $150,000,000 in roads, and I have yet to see a plan for that,” Baker said, pressing for a sustainable funding strategy before approving density increases.

Commissioner Beck argued that higher density can reduce per‑unit infrastructure costs, saying, “the more units per acre, the less cost for the infrastructure.” Commissioner Mackey and others said they appreciated the committee’s work but expressed differing views about balancing property‑owner rights, growth, and infrastructure funding.

Several commissioners and presenters also disputed a widely cited housing‑need figure. The committee said a June 2023 RCLCO forecast often cited as 46,000 new housing units actually covered a six‑county area; the committee estimated Hamilton County’s share is closer to 20,000 units and urged the commission not to treat the larger number as a county‑only target.

Commissioners agreed to hold further, formal zoning discussion later in the meeting sequence. The commission chair and staff said Plan Hamilton and related zoning amendments will be debated during the zoning portion of the agenda; commissioners indicated they would allow additional public and stakeholder input at that time.

The administration warned that even with funding, the county faces capacity constraints to design and construct a large volume of road projects. A county staff speaker told the commission the current volume of capital projects is straining the county’s engineering and project‑management resources and will make rapid rollout of multiple major road projects difficult without increased staffing and planning time.

The Area 9 presenters said their plan aims to preserve rural character, slow the pace of growth to allow infrastructure to catch up, and retain public participation by limiting frequent plan amendments. They asked commissioners explicitly not to approve the home‑builders’ amendments at the forthcoming zoning discussion.

The commission did not vote on Plan Hamilton on June 11. Members set the listed Plan Hamilton items for further consideration during the scheduled zoning session later in the day and signaled additional opportunities for public comment and commissioner deliberation before any final action.