Residents protest procedural move as Columbia council agrees to revisit Taylor Landing zoning

Residents of the Taylor Landing neighborhood pressed the City of Columbia on November meeting procedures after two council members requested that the Water’s Edge development be placed back on a December or January agenda for reconsideration.

Joshua Moore, a Taylor Landing homeowner, told the council, “We’ve got 166 signatures so far,” and said residents organized quickly after learning the item had been resubmitted to an agenda. Moore asked the council to explain the authority and timing for the renewed consideration, citing the city charter’s adoption of Robert’s Rules and guidance that motions to reconsider are typically made at the same meeting where the vote took place.

Christy Doss, another Taylor Landing homeowner, told the council she believed the short notice violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and said a modification to the agenda appeared at 3:54 p.m. the previous day — “just a hair over 24,” she said — while her understanding of notice requirements was longer. Doss said residents were worried the prior failure of Ordinance 45-63 on first consideration should have ended further consideration without explicit council initiation.

City Attorney (unnamed) responded that the zoning code and practice distinguish a motion to reconsider (which is done at the same meeting) from a later motion to “renew” or to place the matter back on an agenda at council direction. He said, “This council has a right to…bring that back to look at again,” and that if the item is refiled the statutory notice and 21-day zoning publication requirements would apply and residents would have opportunities to speak at the public hearing.

Councilman McClellan moved, and a second was recorded, to place the Water’s Edge development back on the agenda for a December or January meeting. The motion passed in roll call with one ‘No’ and one abstention recorded; Vice Mayor Randy McBroom announced he would abstain because he owns property in the area and wanted to avoid a conflict of interest.

The council’s action is procedural only: if the item returns it will be treated as a first consideration at that future meeting, subject to zoning-notice requirements and the standard two-vote rule to pass an ordinance. Residents said they will continue petitioning and attend the subsequent noticed hearings.

Next steps: the item will be advertised and scheduled for either the December or January council meeting and will include the statutory public notices and hearings required for zoning matters.