by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

At the Aug. 18 Monteagle Planning Commission meeting, two issues intersected, the requested approval for the Petro Travel Center at I-24 Exit 135, and inaccuracies on the zoning map approved by the Monteagle City Council in 2019.

In July, Rodney Kilgore presented a site plan for the Petro construction, which failed to meet a number of requirements. The detailed site plan presented at the Aug. 4 meeting addressed most of the issues, but the Planning Commission requested a screening fence as required by Monteagle City ordinance.

The Planning Commission expected to receive a revised site plan at the Aug. 18 meeting. The Commission asked for an 8 foot tall block and brick fence along the entire rear portion of the parking lot. No revised site plan was presented.

Representing Kilgore and co-franchisees Tammy and Brian Graber, attorney Rusty Leonard argued the height and materials requirements were “in excess” of the zoning ordinance requirements and the $500,000 cost was prohibitive and could “break the bank” on an $18 million dollar project. Leonard proposed a wooden fence be erected.

Planning Commission Chair David Oliver countered, based on his research, the fence the commission requested would cost $100,000 and the block and brick construction was needed to buffer sound. “We’re trying to offer protection to the neighboring residents,” Oliver insisted.

Leonard said if the commission failed to approve the proposal for a wood fence, the franchisees had “no choice but to build a wall or file a law suit.” Leonard stressed the travel center not being built could cost Monteagle jobs and tax dollars.

Attorney Bob Huskey, representing residents owning property adjacent to the Petro Center, suggested the commission require a bond sufficient to cover the erection of a block and brick screening fence should the franchisees fail to adhere to the site plan once approved.

A Monteagle resident presented three estimates for sound-barrier screening fences ranging in cost from $136,000 to $355,000.

“We want a sound barrier and protection for the people and we won’t approve a plan until we have that,” Oliver insisted. “At the last meeting, we asked the developer for a site drawing that showed a wall. We don’t have that. There’s nothing to approve.”

Kilgore proposed an alternative to the screening fence requested. Leonard suggest hand writing in the alternative fencing on the plan in the commission’s possession.

“That’s not appropriate,” Oliver said.

The commission voted to deny approval of the site plan. The Petro franchisees can present a revised plan at the next meeting scheduled for Sept. 1.

In the discussion about the erroneous zoning map, former planning commission member Ron Terrill pointed out the Southeast Tennessee Development District inadvertently introduced the errors into the map when the governmental agency created a color-coded map in 2018.

The errors included properties adjacent to and within the proposed Petro tract, which were rezoned from residential to commercial.

A resident argued the Petro project should not even be discussed until the zoning issues were corrected.

Oliver read from a city ordinance requiring public notice of rezoning in a local newspaper and by mail notice to affected residents.

Huskey presented affidavits from 12 residents who had received no notification of the rezoning.

Oliver said the planning commission needed to investigate whether the required public notice and by mail notice occurred. The planning commission will ask the Monteagle City Council to revisit the 2019 zoning changes at the Monday, Aug. 31 meeting.

Oliver stressed most of the proposed Petro property was zoned C-3 and the developers “have the right to build.” Only seven acres of the Petro tract would be affected if the 2019 zoning changes to commercial zoning reverted back to residential.