by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

At the July 27 meeting, the Monteagle City Council grappled with a raft of ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, approving all six, but not unanimously. In other business, the council took up a request for the city to abandon ownership of a portion of two streets.

Arguments challenging two of the amendments reflected concerns about Monteagle having industrial zoning, but no property zoned industrial.

“I’m not going to support this the way it’s written,” said Alderman Grant Fletcher objecting to the ordinance adding light manufacturing and sales as a permitted use in C-3 commercial zoning. “Light manufacturing can mean a lot of different things. The description is vague. We’ve been adamant about not zoning anything industrial in this town and now we’re throwing in light industrial without a real definition. We’ve already been in trouble over the planning commission trying to interpret something that doesn’t exist.”

Fletcher insisted he did not have a problem with the business requesting permission to locate in the area zoned C-3 at the I-24 exit 135. KD3 Construction specializes in custom metal frame buildings and plans to sell building materials, including metal components manufactured on site, to both contractors and the public. The Planning Commission approved the request on the grounds the ordinance allowed the planning commission to “determine whether a proposed use is suitable for the building and surrounding area.” Planning Commission Chair Richard Black voted no at the July 7 planning commission meeting. At the council meeting, Black conceded he approved of the business, as well. Black, however, argued the business should be located in Industrial Zoning. “The definition of C-3 the planning commission abides by is for [uses serving] interstate traffic,” Black stressed.

Alderman Nate Wilson explained the business did not fit Industrial Zoning parameters because the business wanted to do retail sales.

Black countered, “We’re on thin ice by not putting this in industrial. We’re on thin ice anyway because we have industrial zoning and no property zone industrial.”

Fletcher voted against allowing “light manufacturing” in C-3.

The same arguments reared their head in the discussion about the proposed ordinance amendment only allowing data centers in Industrial Zoning as a special exception approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

“I think it’s kind of ridiculous when we come up with a use we don’t like we put it in industrial because we have no industrial property,” Fletcher said. “I’m not saying I want a data center by any means. I don’t understand why we aren’t dealing with this by saying, ‘We don’t allow data centers.’”

Wilson conceded, “We could have some problems if someone comes to us and says, ‘We’d like to put a data center here. Would you rezone it industrial?’ The problem is not where to allow data centers, but how to define data centers.”

Explaining the rationale behind the ordinance amendment, Planning Commissioner Katie Trahan said, “[The town planners] are working on a comprehensive state definition for data centers. We were told this would be a good first step.”

“We couldn’t support [a data center], because we don’t have the utilities,” observed Mayor Greg Maloof. [Note: a frequent objection to a data center is the large amount of water needed for cooling. See Messenger, May 29, 2026]

Wilson noted if a proposed data center requested rezoning a tract to industrial to allow it to locate in Monteagle, the request would need to be weighed against five criteria judging all proposals to rezone.

“Would that stop a data center from locating here?,” Fletcher asked.

“Maybe,” Wilson replied.

Fletcher voted against the ordinance amendment regulating the location of data centers. Maloof abstained.

The council unanimously approved four ordinance amendments.

Ordinance 06-26 standardizes the site plan submission process and requires developers to pay a fee to cover engineering costs needed to determine water and sewer availability.

The other three ordinances related to the C-1 commercial downtown corridor. Ordinance 08-26 allows more residential uses on secondary streets. The Downtown Overlay ordinance (09-26) sets new rules to create greater density in residential areas adjacent to the C-1 downtown corridor. Among the changes, the new rules allow for dormitory hostel-style temporary living quarters. Ordinance 10-26 sets new rules for the C-1 downtown corridor. Wilson explained the changes intended to “make the corridor more amenable to commercial development.” Among the changes, the ordinance allows for smaller lot sizes, smaller building sizes, and does not require parking. “Parking was the biggest point of contention,” Wilson acknowledged, but he went on to point out, “Downtown is full of empty lots. A parking problem would be a great problem to have to fix.”

Resident Chris Fox asked the council to abandon ownership of an alley designated on maps as portions of 1st Street and Spur Avenue. Fox argued a section of the alley was on his property and incorrectly designated as city property by a surveyor. The alley borders property owned by Richard Black, Ronald Crabtree, the Monteagle Sunday School Assembly, and Katie and Tim Trahan. Fox explained frequent use by Assembly employees became an issue when the Assembly put in a new parking lot.

All the affected parties attended the meeting, except Crabtree. There appeared to be agreement about how the property would be apportioned if the city abandoned it and about easements to accommodate the affected property owners’ interests. But the council was reluctant to take action without written documentation.

“I don’t feel comfortable with just abandoning it and letting them figure it out. That’s a good opportunity to disenfranchise someone. I want to see an agreement with all adjacent and affected landowners signing it,” Wilson said. Maloof requested a survey identifying the property in question.

Fox will pursue providing the documentation.