Franklin beer board keeps final certificate-of-occupancy practice after months-long TCO review

FRANKLIN, Tenn. — The City of Franklin Beer Board on June 10 discussed whether beer permits should be allowed when a business has only a temporary certificate of occupancy, but members ultimately agreed not to ask the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to change the city code.

Blake, a staff member who presented the legal review, said the city’s “general recommendation is that the city should keep the code as it is.” He told the board the municipal code (cited in the presentation as section 8 2 10 12) has been interpreted to require final building approval before issuing an on‑premises beer permit and that a final certificate requires completed building, zoning and life‑safety signoffs.

The question arose after staff encountered at least one case in which a business was otherwise ready to open but remained without a final CO because of a non‑life‑safety zoning issue in the historic preservation overlay. Members said that allowing beer permits on TCOs could undermine zoning and code enforcement or transfer substantial discretionary power to other boards.

“A lot of times, applicants have just started the certificate of occupancy process,” Blake said. “Allowing beer permits based on a temporary certificate of occupancy may complicate our city's code enforcement and zoning compliance processes.” Alderman Barnhill said he saw no reason to change the practice and noted most Tennessee municipalities require full code compliance before issuing similar permits.

Tom Morris, director of the Building and Neighborhood Services Department, described enforcement if a temporary CO expires: “They are just operating and occupying a building without a certificate of occupancy,” Morris said, explaining the city’s enforcement path (notice of violation, municipal-court citation, and potential per‑day fines) when a TCO is not extended or converted to a final CO.

Alderman Caesar described the factual origin of the request: a business that was ready for operation except for a zoning denial tied to historic‑overlay design review that prevented zoning final approval and therefore blocked a final CO. Alderman Teucer said he was “split” but suggested a possible narrowly defined, code‑amendment pathway if the board wanted to allow limited TCO‑based permits in specific circumstances. Legal staff said creating a TCO exception would require a formal amendment to the municipal code and careful limits (scope, time limits, conversion conditions) to avoid unintended consequences.

Board members ultimately indicated the current contingent approval practice — where the beer board may approve an application contingent on the applicant later obtaining a final CO — and the present staff recommendation to require a final CO were adequate. The board did not make a formal recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to change the code at this time and asked staff to report back if additional exceptions or data surfaced.

Why it matters: The city’s certificate‑of‑occupancy rules determine when businesses may open and sell alcohol. Relaxing the final‑CO requirement could speed openings for some new businesses but would shift enforcement and zoning risk and might allow alcohol sales before all zoning or off‑site infrastructure obligations are met.

Looking ahead: Staff offered to draft narrow draft language if the board wants to pursue a code amendment; members asked staff to return with more detailed proposals only if additional cases show a pattern that warrants change.