by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

The Monteagle Council again played to a full house at the Aug. 26 meeting. The meeting opened with residents appealing to the developers of a proposed truck stop to consider other options. A motel was suggested. Resident Lucy Keeble observed buyers had offered the RBT developers millions more than they paid for the property. The issue before the council: would the RBT truck stop project be required to comply with new rules passed since the site plan was approved in July 2021.

Mayor Greg Maloof announced “threats” and “shouting” would not be tolerated. He apologized for failure to maintain “effective meeting decorum” at the July meeting. Tempers flared during the discussion about the truck stop project. By Tennessee law, the vested property rights of the project expired July 7, 2024, because in the three years since the site plan was approved, the developers had failed to meet required benchmarks. If Monteagle did not grant the project a vested-property-rights extension, rules not in effect in 2021 would now apply to the project, significantly, Monteagle’s stormwater runoff plan. [See Messenger, August 2, 2024].

Attorneys for both the town and RBT developers addressed the council.

RBT attorney Bill Horton cited the lawsuit brought by Monteagle residents against RBT. “It would have been impractical and illogical for RBT to start construction while a case was on appeal,” Horton argued. “What if the court of appeals had reversed? [The lower court ruled in RBT’s favor.] … The proper thing is to recognize their vested property rights and grant an extension ... Having them start all over is not a rational or fair solution.”

Monteagle attorney Sam Elliott said the town had three options: enforce termination of the vested property rights per state law; pass a resolution terminating the vested property rights; extend the vested property rights.

Alderman Nate Wilson made a motion to pass a resolution terminating the vested property rights. The motion died for lack of a second. Alderman Dan Sargent made a motion to extend the vested property rights for 90 days. Audience members shouted, “No. No.” Sargent’s motion also died for lack of a second.

Wilson then made a motion “the vested property rights be deemed expired by operation of law.” Discussion followed. “I don’t want it to have to cost them out the ‘yin-yang’ to do another site plan,” said alderwoman Dorraine Parmley. Explaining the project’s current status, Codes Enforcement officer Travis Lawyer said the February stop work order on the project had not been lifted. “[RBT] is in the process of having the building permit reinstated … As the inspector, I must have acknowledgement [the project] has a vested site plan to issue a permit … I’m waiting to hear from the state.”

In the vote to terminate vested property rights, Maloof, Wilson, and alderwoman Jessica Favaloro voted “yes,” Parmley abstained, and Sargent voted “no.” “This isn’t legal!” said RBT developer Rodney Kilgore.