SOUTH POINT — Local businessman Joe Freeman is asking for a months-long dispute over development plans to come to an end.

Freeman asked the South Point Village Council at its meeting Tuesday to give a yes-or-no decision within the next three months as to whether he can move forward with his plans to develop the former South Point Elementary School into a multi-purpose building to house condominiums and business offices.

“My insurance expires in three months,” Freeman explained. “They won’t reinsure the building unless it’s occupied … I have to insure it as occupied, which goes from $2,000 to $7,000 every six months. I can’t spend $7,000 every six months for an empty building that I’m making no money on.”

Freeman bought the building, located on Washington Street, last year with a plan to add senior condos and several businesses, including his own, Health Management Nursing Services, and would bring about 25-50 jobs to the village.

Freeman has been at a standstill since resident opposition spurred a look at the current zoning ordinance, which was drafted in the 1980 and 1990s, that disallows any commercial uses in a residential area. The school building is boarded on two sides by a residential neighborhood. Village attorney Randy Lambert has since drafted a new zoning ordinance that has remained tabled since December of last year.

Also impeding Freeman’s progress is two remaining signatures from adjacent homeowners near the school. Freeman has eight of 10 needed to go ahead with his project in some capacity.

“Two of the neighbors want to remain neutral because they have ties with the mayor,” Freeman said. “I think it’s fair to have the neighbors remain neutral, but the parcel still counts against me. That’s not remaining neutral. If they want to remain neutral, don’t count the parcel against me. If those two don’t count against me, I’ve got my 60 percent.”

Mayor Ron West said later at the meeting that the two parcels are owned by his church and they have chosen not to take either side.

Councilman Jeff Gaskin asked Freeman why he bought the school without looking into potential problems like these.

“You seem like a pretty sharp man,” Gaskin said, “It seems to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that you bought this not knowing exactly what you could do. Could you explain to me why you bought it thinking that maybe something like this could happen?”

Freeman said, noting that he counseled with the Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce and the Lawrence Economic Development Corp. before his purchase, “I bought it knowing I needed 60 percent of signatures, and I figured I would never have the first problem getting the 60 percent.”

“If he gets his 60 percent he is entitled to have exactly what he wants there,” Lambert explained. “If not, according to the ordinance, he can’t.”

Village residents were also in attendance and voiced their opinions on both sides of the issue.

Duane Dornon said his comment opposing the development was not a personal attack against Freeman or his plans.

“He probably has all the good intentions in the world, but it’s still commercial offices in a residential area.”

Another woman, who would not give her name, said, “I feel the same way. I think the village should uphold our ordinance as it states. We are residential and it should stay residential.”

Emerson Moore, also a resident, saw the matter differently.

“I think Lawrence County needs some type of upscale constructions. If there is anything we as a community can do to assist him to take that to the next level, I think we ought to proceed with it,” Moore said. “I don’t live down there, but I can’t see why that would take away from the value of that community. It looks like to me it would increase the value.”

Rosalie Stone, who lives across from the school, presented council with a letter of support of Freeman.

“We need to encourage growth with open invitations to businesses and family,” Stone said. “We need to move forward by offering jobs, new housing and building a stronger tax base.”

Freeman also shared a few of the architectural plans with council, such as a corporate park in the back with a pond and fountain, BBQ area with picnic tables, a walking trail and jungle gym and tree house. Freeman also said his plans were to move the majority of parking to the rear of the building.

“I have to decide if I can use my building, whether I’m going to sell my building or where I’m going to move and prepare another property, and it all takes time,” Freeman said. “I figure I have about three or four months to get an answer.”

West spoke for council and said they would give him an answer in 60 days.

Council will have a work session to discuss the issue at 6:30 p.m. before the next council meeting. The meeting will be March 8 due to the primary election on March 6.