by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

The Monteagle Council tackled several controversial decisions at the July 29 meeting. Tempers flared in a two-hour discussion about the future of the proposed Petro truck stop, with the council divided in its final vote. [See “Monteagle Truck Stop Controversy Flares Up Again.”] Two other contested issues confronted the council, as well: whether to allow unmanned traffic cameras, and where to allow campgrounds.

At a July 17 special called meeting, the council had voted down an ordinance allowing unmanned lidar traffic cameras, questioning where the cameras would be used and the financial benefit.

By state law unmanned cameras were allowed “only in school zones,” said Ryan Moore, Blue Line Solutions representative, who addressed the council at the request of Police Chief William Raline. If approved, the contract with Blue Line would also provide the police department with a free handheld lidar camera. Raline explained the handheld cameras would aid officers in places like Laurel Lake Road and construction areas where pursuing speeders was dangerous for both motorists and officers.

The school zone cameras will have three signage mechanisms, including a sign telling the motorist their speed, Moore said. Only speeders exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph will receive citations. Blue Line will set the cameras to only monitor speeding on school days. If, in the case of an unanticipated school closure, a motorist was ticketed, the citation would be revoked.

In a baseline test over five days, 22,000 vehicles passed through Monteagle’s school zone with 12,000 speeders and 48 mph the average speed, Raline pointed out. In cities that implemented cameras, speeding decreased 80 percent. “A citation does not go on your driving history or insurance,” Raline said. “It’s a civil thing.” The $50 fine will be split between the city and Blue Line. “If we get revenue [from the cameras] that’s great. But ideally the traffic slows down.”

“It’s the price of a child’s life,” said a resident voicing approval for the cameras.

The council will vote again on the ordinance after amending the language to reflect the limited use parameters outlined by Moore.

Taking up an ordinance amendment that would have restricted campgrounds in C-2 commercial zoning to a “use on review” decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the council voted down the ordinance and will ask the Planning Commission to draft an ordinance allowing campgrounds in both C-2 and C-3 “upon review.”

Planning Commission member Katie Trahan explained that with the American Institute of Architects planning process still underway, the C-2 ordinance amendment was intended to give the town “more control until we know what direction the town wants to go. We’re not doing any drastic rezoning right now.”

Randy Hill, who six months ago requested permission for a campground in C-3, never received an answer. Currently campgrounds are not allowed in C-3.

“What do we need to do to help him?” asked Alderwoman Dorraine Parmley.

Noting the site of Hill’s proposed project, on Trussell Road across the interstate from the business district, Wilson suggested the C-3 property in that area might be a good location for campgrounds. Monteagle’s rules on campgrounds “did a good job of making sure campgrounds are an asset to the community,” Wilson stressed.

“We’ve had campgrounds here for 50 years,” said Alderman Dan Sargent.

At present, campgrounds are only allowed in C-2 and R-3 residential and only upon the Board of Zoning Appeals review.