This dirt trail at 1610 James Blvd. and the clear-cut acreage behind it are at the center of a zoning dispute between Signal Mountain officials and the developers who want to build there
An easement that husband and wife developers granted themselves to undeveloped land with no access to a public road has raised eyebrows among Signal Mountain government and legal officials.
“You can’t grant yourself an (access) easement,” town attorney Phil Noblett said. “It has to be approved by the planning commission.”
Jacquie Hulgan, registered agent for H&H Construction and Development LLC, and her husband – contractor Gordon "Buddy" Hulgan – own several lots which are part of a never-developed subdivision and now want to build a home on that property.
The Hulgans, who owned and operated Signal Mountain Construction before opening H&H last year, have developed numerous properties in and around the town over the years and are well known in the community.
According to the Tennessee secretary of state’s website, SMC’s license to do business expired in March.
In a March 30 appeal filed to the Signal Mountain’s Board of Zoning Appeals on H&H’s behalf, Ms.
Hulgan – referring to the easement and the previously landlocked lots behind it at 1610 James Boulevard – said the easement was an attempt to solve problems created by a “(s)treet never opened, or abandoned, creating unopened right away (sic).”
The subdivision, christened Hutcheson Heights, was recorded in 1912 – seven years before Signal Mountain became a town. Although no streets or houses were ever build on the property, the original plat remains on county books, officials said.
The issue came to a head during the March 5 meeting of the Signal Mountain Planning Commission, where H&H Construction representatives sought a permit to abandon the lot lines on the property they own in the undeveloped subdivision in preparation for building a house there.
“It was noted that a homeowner cannot create an easement, and it appears that the property owner had created an access easement without obtaining approval from the Planning Commission,” according to the official minutes of that meeting. “. . . (The property owner) had recorded a deed showing such access easement.”
“This access easement was made in 2009, (three years) after it was prohibited by an ordinance in 2006,” the minutes continued.
Planning commissioners agreed to approve the requested abandonment of existing lot lines, the minutes reported, “subject to . . . the legality of the current access easement.”
Ms. Hulgan, contacted by phone, referred all questions to Jasper attorney Harvey Cameron, who she said is handling the case for H&H.
Attempts to reach Mr. Cameron for comment were unsuccessful.
Attorney Noblett said he believes there are several problems with H&H’s actions and legal position.
The Hulgans' decision to grant themselves an easement through property they owned on James Boulevard clearly violates the town’s 2006 ordinance prohibiting such actions, he said.
Further, he said, their contention that a subdivision plat recorded in 1912, but never built, remains viable is questionable at best.
Attorney Noblett said he is researching the legal issues in preparation for a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday, which he plans to attend.