Upset by Signal officials’ decision to hold a rush vote on Wednesday on a proposed new grocery and commercial center, picketers lined up along Taft Highway to protest this weekend
Giving less than a week’s notice, Signal Mountain officials have scheduled a June 6 vote on a controversial proposed rezoning that would replace residential property with a 38,000-square-foot grocery and other “highway commercial” development in the heart of the town.
The new voting date comes a full week before a public hearing on the proposed rezoning scheduled for June 13 -- the same date as the originally planned first council vote on the matter.
The change was announced late Thursday afternoon in an email blast from Signal Mountain town hall.
That message included twin agendas: one for the hastily called June 6 meeting, and another for the public hearing a week later.
Opponents of the measure, infuriated by the surprise action, took to the streets. Both Friday and Saturday, they lined up along the affected portions of Taft Highway waving signs opposing the rezoning.
“No rezone!” one protester’s sign declared. “Honk if you agree!” another urged motorists driving by.
And honk they did. In some cases, enthusiastic supporters tooted a series of honks that began when the spotted the protesters and continued until they were no longer in sight.
The decision to rush forward with a vote came despite a variety of problems that have been cited regarding the proposed rezoning and commercial development.
For example, a study of Hamilton County’s real estate market, done in 2016 by Bleakly Advisory Group, determined that Walden’s Plateau – where Signal is located – would need only about 9,000 square feet of additional retail space over the next 10 years.
Just the grocery store that would anchor the proposed new commercial development would contain 38,000 square feet.
On another front, both Councilman Dan Landrum and attorney Van Bunch, a member of the planning commission which turned thumbs down on the request by Keith Corp., believe the council’s actions could open the town to legal liability.
“What the planning commission did at its April 5 meeting is ‘disapprove’ the rezoning request,” according to public statements made by Bunch, until recently a Signal resident.
“Under Ordinance 1802.02, it was incumbent on the applicant to request and secure a ‘favorable vote of a majority of the entire membership” of the town council to approve the rezoning within 30 days of submitting the request to the planning commission. The applicant failed to do so, rendering the request moot and out of time.”
Councilman Landrum also is concerned, according to comments posted on League of Signal Mountain Voters, a blog maintained by former Signal Mayor Paul Hendricks.
Rather than simply voting the rezoning request up or down when it was presented to them, Councilman Landrum wrote, a majority voted to postpone the vote until after a series of public meetings discussing the Signal Mountain Land Use Plan had been held.
“I think that was inappropriate,” he said. “This move may have, in my humble opinion, exposed the town to potential legal action . . . Had the developer been interested in the outcome of this process, then the rezone request could have been submitted after the process was complete.”
Councilman Landrum said that problem was compounded in May when, during a meeting attended by only three council members, Mayor “Chris Howley introduced the possibility for an altered request as submitted by a friend of his. I was out of the country, or I would have vehemently opposed this,” he noted. “. . . It is not and should not be the town council’s role to help rewrite a rezoning request, with the exception of ameliorating potential damage to surrounding property owners via restrictions.”
Those aren’t the only potential problems, other comments on LOSMV -- which has drawn numerous comments from contributers, a sizable number of whom do not even live in the town -- indicated.
“Sounds like a rush job,” Mr. Hendricks himself opined.
“There is a spring-fed stream and wetland on this property,” Alex McGregor wrote. “TDEC surveyed the area 10 years ago and ruled that any disturbance requires an Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP). This hasn’t been addressed. Nor has the steep slope of the land.”
The LOSMV blog also drew sporadic comments from supporters of the proposed rezoning.
Had Signal council members decided to not hold a vote on the matter, Chris Ogle wrote, their action would have constituted dereliction of duty.
“There are 5 empty storefronts in the town center right now – 5,” Mr. Ogle noted. “That is not including the dilapidated Taco Bell building. If you have a tenant that is willing and able to come in and fill that void . . . you simply must look at that, as a governmental entity.”
Other comments came from mountain residents who like the idea of a grocery store that would charge more reasonable prices than Pruett’s, the longtime community grocery where prices are significantly higher than those asked for the same items by stores located in the valley.
Those comments echo those made by other mountain residents during casual conversations.
“I hate to pay $4.85 for cereal that is about $3.88 off the mountain,” one local Realtor declared recently. “Same size box.”
According to the message posted on LOSMV, Councilman Dan Landrum -- writing from England where he and his wife have been vacationing -- said he had been contacted there by Signal residents concerned about the rush vote.
The councilman said he first became involved in the issue when he received a message from Town Manager Boyd Veal on May 31, asking Mr. Landrum to contact him. When he did so, Mr. Landrum said, Mr. Veal said he had been asked to find dates “as soon as possible” for a special meeting when the town council could cast its first vote on the proposed rezoning.
“I asked who wanted to do this and why,” Councilman Landrum explained. “Boyd said it was (Mayor) Chris’ (Howley) idea, and that his thinking was that if there is a chance it is going to fail, then it should do so before we hold a public hearing.”
The councilman said he agreed to the June 6 meeting, after making certain that the June 13 public hearing would still be held and “that we would NOT vote second reading until the regular July council meeting.