Blount County commissioners advance resolution on property-owner rights after debate over enforcement and liability

Blount County Commission moved Resolution 2501014—described at the meeting as "a resolution protecting property ownership rights of citizens of Blount County"—forward to the full commission by a recorded tally of 15 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention at the Jan. 7, 2025 workshop meeting.

The resolution, introduced at the workshop, says that when county staff or officials deny a requested use of private property they should provide the petitioner a written citation to the specific ordinance that prohibits the activity. Proponents told the commission the measure responds to complaints that county staff sometimes deny uses that are not clearly prohibited by ordinance.

Proponent Commissioner Acord said the resolution grew out of complaints from residents and social-media posts and framed the proposal as a protection of longstanding property rights. "Nobody ever should be telling people they can't do things on their own property when it's not against the law," Commissioner Acord said. He gave examples such as power poles for RVs and septic permits and asked the commission to send the measure forward so it can be formalized.

Opponents and cautious commissioners urged legal review before adopting policy. "I will not support this ... until we take the simple time to ask somebody that's on our payroll to tell us if this is right or wrong," Commissioner Koehler said, urging the commission to get the county attorney's advice. County Attorney Craig Garrett later addressed the meeting, saying that if the commission passes a policy and the mayor signs it he expects it would be presented to planning staff for implementation but warned about potential legal exposure if officials impose requirements that have no basis in county code.

Several commissioners raised questions about how the resolution would be enforced in practice. Commissioner Carver asked whether the resolution would operate as a form of grandfathering—preserving rights that existed at the time of purchase—or how it would affect zoning and permitting. The meeting record shows staff and commissioners agreed to seek follow-up answers from the county attorney and planning department before final action by the full commission.

Other commissioners framed the measure as a policy of clearer communication rather than new law. Commissioner Michaels said the measure "is not a law ... this is all this is is implementation of policy and procedure" and urged sending it forward so the county attorney can provide an opinion before final passage.

The commission voted to forward Resolution 2501014 to the full commission for final consideration; the clerk recorded the tally as 15 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention. The motion to forward was made by Commissioner Aykard and seconded by Commissioner Davis.

If the full commission approves the resolution and the mayor signs it, the resolution would be communicated to county planning staff for implementation; multiple commissioners asked staff to return with clarifying language and with the county attorney's opinion before final passage.

Ending: The commission will take up the measure at the regular meeting the commission schedules next week; commissioners asked for written clarifications from the county attorney and planning staff in advance of that meeting.