Might Tygard and a Baptist Church Be Trying to Pull an End Around on the Sign Ordinance?

Enclave commenter Lauren has this to say about my report of CM Charlie Tygard's intention to introduce a bill to allow a Baptist church in Bellevue to have LED signs:

There are two main reasons HH Baptist Church cannot have a sign such as this. The first is they are not on commercially zoned property. The second is they are within 100 feet of a residence. They don't need this bill, they need to change their zoning. They are already in talks to potentially buy the residence. Obviously there are reasons that are beneficial to them to not have commercial zoning but they shouldn't have their cake and eat it too. They need to change their zoning, they need to purchase the residence. They need to follow the rules of every other business that has to meet these requirements just as Walgreens and Publix did. The YMCA did get a variance on their signage because they are off the street and there's no way to know they're there without the sign. But I still don't agree with that - they didn't need an LED moving sign to make that happen either. The zoning commission shut Tygard down and now he's trying to get HH permission to get their sign at the visual cost to the entire population of Nashville.

I would say that this information touches on the question of CM Tygard's ethics. The news that there is a residence within 100 feet of the church belies his insinuation that residents would not be affected by LED signs on major streets.

To what lengths does he intend to go as an at-large member to pull in favors for Bellevue organizations? If he is using his position on the Council to co-opt the zoning process that we are all bound to, then I would argue that he is using his power unethically and outside of his commitment to represent the community-at-large, since other neighborhoods would be adversely affected by an ordinance that allows LED signs on arterial roads.