Signal Mountain, Tennessee Issues and Happenings

In the continuing saga of the SROZ, the latest entry is today's editorial by Bill Lusk. Frankly, I am starting to wear down. I have made my points and they continue to be ignored. I have argued for density-based zoning, based on Randall Arendt's advice and I continue to hear about lot-size based zoning. There are many unsupported comments in today's editorial. The comment is made that the SROZ is in conflict with the Land Use Plan developed in 2008. Well, of course!That is why we are changing the zoning, however a return to lot-based zoning is also in conflict since the land use plan states:

"...large lot development with structures distributed on an equal amount of acreage with large lawns and wide roads contributes to the loss of this [small town] character and do not protect wildlife habitat and water quality. To help preserve the scenic beauty and sensitive natural features of this area, Open Space subdivisions or Planned Unit Developments with substantial amounts of open space are the preferred methods of development in these areas. In order to preserve desired natural features, the focus in this area should be providing more flexibility within regulations regarding net density, while maintaining a gross low density. This will allow better preservation of open space and environmental features."

Mr. Lusk seems to confuse subdivision regulations with zoning regulations. While the current work on subdivision regs are important, they are the means to the end which is new zoning. The regulations will hopefully make conservation zoning more practical and help to lower costs and preserve land, but combining these with large lot sizes will continue to waste land and be counter-productive. Only through density-based zoning can we have true conservation zoning.

I have recommended we add a density cap to the SROZ as an intermediate step to address the very issue that Mr. Lusk and the rest of the council fears (increased density), preferably with an incentive for open-space preservation. This proposal has been ignored. Ironically, previous land use plans have generally recommended a density for the area of 2 homes per acre, in the ballpark of what I've recommended (I would prefer less for conventional and more for open-space subdivisions as an incentive). Nothing has yet been proposed for this area that is greater than this density.

Mr. Lusk has indicated an unfairness to having a different zoning category from the rest of the town in the Shackleford Ridge area. However, this area has always had different zoning from the rest of the town since it was annexed. Residential Estate zoning doesn't exist anywhere else that I know of. It was created to allow the residents there to keep farm animals such as horses and pigs on lots greater than 3 acres. By this reasoning, Residential Estate should (and probably would) be available throughout the town if the SROZ is repealed, allowing farm animals anywhere that a minimum of 3 acres is available. Alternatively, we could solve this by lowering the minimum acreage to 1/3 acre for sewered lots throughout the town to ensure fairness. Mind you, I'm not proposing either of these alternatives.

Mr. Lusk is wrong about the commercial zoning issue. I disagree that "commercial development is no more likely to occur in the Shackleford Ridge area than in any other residential area in the town." This area has been identified in the past as a site for a future "commercial node". The majority of this council has been very clear in its desire for more commercial rezoning and one has even enthused that the Timberlinks-Shackleford Ridge intersection would be a great place for a convenience store to serve the high school students. Let me emphasize: There are no commercial options available under the SROZ. At present, in order to create a commercial zone, we would have to either add commercial zoning to the SROZ or repeal the SROZ. Sound familiar? I honestly don't know how likely commercial development is, but part of my reason for raising it is that we have not considered all the implications of this repeal.

Finally, I want to address statistics. As a physician, I know how statistics can be misunderstood, misused and misrepresented. There is an old saw about "lies, *%&$# lies and statistics". Mr. Lusk himself, in his statement when he opposed increased funding for the high school misrepresented and misused (or misunderstood) statisics. He stated that Signal Mountain paid for 77% of the High School and only had 45% of the students. That is wrong. The High School cost approximately $40 million dollars and we donated $7.7 million. That is about 19% of the cost. Based on his reasoning, we got quite a bargain out of the high school. With this experience, I thought I should look closely at the statistics in his op-ed. He quoted data from the Ochs Center study. I reviewed this study and had a very pleasant discussion with some of their staff. I do appreciate Mr. Lusk introducing me to this outstanding resource.

First, it should be clear that the data on median house value was based on census tract data that only reflected part of the town (see http://ochscenter.org/map_pdfs/signalmountain_2008.pdf for the map and data). This area does not include my neighborhood (The Orchard), St. Ives, Creekshire or the Shackleford Ridge Road area. Since these are higher end neighborhoods, the data is clearly skewed. It is based on MLS data which is unavailable to the general public, so I couldn't delve into the value data in greater detail, but the total number of homes sold would be clearly pertinent since the lower the denominator, the less reliable the statistics. The report does note that Signal Mountain has the highest housing values in the county, which is good for homeowners, but does not make the argument for affordability. Also, my argument was about new housing. I agree that there are older homes available in areas of Signal Mountain, some of which are of lesser cost, however nearly all new homes I know of are marketed at greater than 1/2 million dollars. This report also includes the statistic that we have averaged about 12 building permits per year (before the moratorium) and an increase in "one family household units" of 1.7% from 2001-2007 which hardly supports a fear of "unbridled growth".

It seems clear to me that the majoriy on this council is bound and determined to do what they will do regardless of what the Planning Commission decides. I'm not sure why we are wasting their time again. They have voted on this issue twice and the Council keeps asking the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Whether or not they get it I expect the council's actions will be the same. It also seems clear that the outcome is pre-ordained and all the work of the last 2 1/2 years has been a smokescreen. I only hope that, whatever the Council does on the SROZ in the short run, it will still ultimately do the right thing and pass progressive zoning regulations for the town which will lead to preservation of our open spaces and discourage sprawl. Based on what I've read today, I am not hopeful.