Zoning by Form, Character, and Feel
by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer
“What we hope to get out of this meeting is to understand what you need,” said town planning consultant Brian Wright at a Jan. 14, joint meeting of the Monteagle Council and the steering committee for Imagine Monteagle, the recently adopted town plan. Monteagle is considering engaging Wright’s firm, Town Planning and Urban Design Collaborative (TPUDC), to help Monteagle refine and clarify its zoning definitions and rules.
Monteagle received a $65,000 grant from the Lyndhurst Foundation to offset the cost of the project. “The Imagine Monteagle plan lays out what we want to do, but at present it’s not clear from the zoning map and Zoning ordinances how to get there,” said Alderman Nate Wilson who spearheaded the Imagine Monteagle planning effort. “There is not a lot of intent evident in the map and ordinances.”
“How do we use zoning and planning to make the Imagine Monteagle vision happen?” asked Recreation Committee Chair Ty Burnett. He pointed out the planning commission was frequently asked to recommend special exceptions to zoning rules or to rezone areas to allow uses prohibited there.
“The planning commission wants to approve everything by special exceptions,” concurred Alderman Dean Lay. Lay also observed the commission frequently put off granting final approval or found hurdles to approving a project.
“Special exceptions should be used sparingly,” cautioned Bill Wright, TPUDC Director of Coding.
“If you put someone off it shows you’re not confident in your ordinances,” Brian Wright said. “It costs the developer money, and as a result, the project is not as good as it could have been.” Wright observed the planning commission members were regular citizens, not planning consultants, and were being asked to make decisions on things they were not qualified to decide on.
Alderman Grant Fletcher cited another difficulty with Monteagle’s zoning. “If a someone comes in with a project and it meets all the criterion on the checklist, the planning commission doesn’t have any way to say ‘no’ when it’s business the town doesn’t want.”
Zoning could be by use or feel or a mixture of the two, stressed Brian Wright. He suggested defining the use or intent of a zoning district might be less important than whether the layout and design specified, the form, matched the character wanted.
Wright maintained that Monteagle’s zoning ordinance, written in the 1980s, was based on zoning by use standards developed in the 1920s. Rules that focused on intent, i.e., use, invited “subjective interpretation.” He argued Monteagle needed an entirely new zoning ordinance with more focus on character that identified the specifics that would give the desired outcome. Given Monteagle’s limited budget, TPUDC’s proposal called for analysis, not fixing the ordinances.
Wilson said additional funding would likely be available in the near future. Fletcher speculated asking the town for more money would be “a difficult sell.”
TPUDC proposed several possible avenues for moving forward within the budget available. One solution would be for the firm to draft an “overlay” the existing zoning rules could be plugged into. Another solution would be patchwork addressing zoning ordinances, perhaps setting 10 priority areas and beginning there, with a view toward a total overhaul.
TPUDC will submit a revised proposal minimizing analysis and laying out possible “fix” based formulas for moving forward.
Revisiting TPUDC’s initial question about what Monteagle needed, Wilson insisted, “We want ordinances that match and create the character of the town.”