Rezoning petitions by developers often raise the ire of surrounding residents, and usually for good reason. More intensive development of land that is lightly used often brings traffic congestion, noise, road hazards, land-use conflicts and crowded schools and disrupts existing development patterns. All these consequences seem in play in the case of a proposed 230-apartment development in a blind curve along Ooltewah's Hunter Road.
Residents of the area are further disturbed by what appears to be a political play for a development advantage that they never envisioned after the Regional Planning Agency and the County Commission had firmly rejected the development proposal.
The proposal by Florida developer David McDaniels for a 23-acre parcel owned by Dr. Tim Ballard had riled the community since December 2009, but it seemed to be permanently defeated after the RPA and county officials rejected the proposal the third time. But in May, the owner and developer persuaded the city of Chattanooga to annex the site, which is contiguous with the city boundary.
Mayor Ron Littlefield's proposal to the City Council for annexation of the parcel, which came after the mayor and City Councilman Jack Benson met with the developer, was approved May 21. The developer subsequently renewed his request for a rezoning, from R-1 residential to R-3, which allows for dense apartment development, and is now scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Tuesday.
Ooltewah opponents have more than 500 names on a petition to defeat the rezoning, and they filled the seats at the last RPA meeting. City Council members can expect them to show up Tuesday night to demand to know why the RPA recommendation to deny the rezoning should be overridden.
They already suspect a behind-the-scenes deal between the city and the developer, and some assume the City Council will turn a deaf ear to their concerns because they are not city residents, and because a rezoning would benefit the city's property tax base.
That's an understandable view, but there's a lot more to consider.
In a conversation with this page, Councilman Benson pledged that he and the mayor gave no promise or agreement to the developer to rezone the land if it were annexed. Indeed, Mr. Benson says he told the developer that he would be wrong to assume the land would be rezoned.
Further, he said Thursday that he probably would vote against a rezoning, but couldn't speak for other council members.
However, he also predicted that the land ultimately would be developed in some fashion simply because of growth pressures in that side of the city due to the wave of development that planners widely agree will occur when the VW plant and its supplier companies go into operation.
Under that pressure, he suggested, the issue would be not whether the land will be developed, but how it will be developed. If it's not rezoned, he said, a developer may find it most profitable to allow starter homes and rental units under existing R-1 zoning, as opposed to the sort of controlled terms and conditions that could be fixed for new developed under a qualified rezoning application that allows the governing body to negotiate land-use guidelines.
That scenario, which has played out in various ways in other development challenges, should prompt city officials, the developer and the Hunter Road community to re-think their positions on re-zoning and development.
In the larger view, it also should foster interest in a broader land-use planning initiative involving the city, county and other affected communities from Collegedale to the Highway 58 area to Bradley County.
This page has been calling for a comprehensive land-use plan for this broad area since the Volkswagen plant was announced, but city and county officials have worked almost solely on trunk roads and industrial infrastructure. Regrettably, they have generally ignored the need for a land-use plan that would consider residential neighborhoods, sewers, streets, parks, playgrounds, school classroom capacity, wetlands and greenspace protection, bicycle and pedestrian routes, shopping hubs versus strip development, and related issues. They also ignore the need for impact fees on developers to assure equitable front-end investment from those who stand to profit immensely, but leave the infrastructure consequences to taxpayers.
The current Ooltewah controversy is merely an opening shot on what is coming. If city and county officials fail to take it as such and engage the planning struggle, we all will be stuck with great long-term costs, congestion and frustration from lack of competent planning.