Aldermen approve interlocal for Hillview/Coleman road work but defer Harlan PUD until county decides

Franklin’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Aug. 12 approved a city interlocal agreement with Williamson County for roadwork on portions of Hillview Lane and Coleman Road but deferred final action on the Harlan planned-unit development and related annexation, zoning and impact-fee items until Nov. 11, 2025.

The board voted 6–2 to approve City of Franklin Contract 2025-0041, the interlocal the county must also approve, with the following roll call: Alderman Barnhill — Yes; Alderman Blanton — Yes; Alderman Caesar — No; Alderman Peterson — No; Alderman Burger — Yes; Alderman Brown — Yes; Vice Mayor Potts — Yes; Alderman Baggett — Yes. Minutes show the board then deferred the Harlan plan-of-services, annexation, rezoning and development-plan items — including the road-impact-fee offset agreement (not to exceed $4,647,999) and parkland-impact agreements — to Nov. 11 by unanimous vote.

Why it matters: city staff and the city attorney told the board that noncontiguous annexations require an interlocal with Williamson County before the city should take final action; without the county’s sign‑off the development plan would be premature. That legal and scheduling uncertainty was a central reason aldermen and the applicant agreed to a deferral.

What the board heard: Planning staff presented the draft plan-of-services for the 311.21‑acre site at 1247 Hillview Lane and recommended approval only if county access and related road improvements were resolved. City Attorney Shauna Billingsley told the board that “state law does say that when there’s noncontiguous property an interlocal is required,” and recommended not taking final action until the county’s process is clear. City Administrator Eric Stuckey and staff likewise urged caution.

County timeline and process: staff and the county’s representatives described the county review path as two steps — the Williamson County Highway Commission followed by the Williamson County Commission. County Commissioner Bill Petty told the board, “you have to have a resolution in 2 weeks before the meeting,” and explained the county’s filing deadlines for its commission. Staff advised that, even if the county acts quickly, the earliest practical date for the board to revisit city actions would likely be late September or, more conservatively, October; the board settled on a November 11 date to allow time for the county process and additional technical work.

Public comment and concerns: more than a dozen residents and neighbors urged the board to delay the project and to preserve Hillview Lane, describing the lane as a tree‑canopied heritage road. Concerns raised in public comments included: Coleman Road’s current safety rating (residents and commenters said it has an F safety grade), expected increases in traffic on Columbia Avenue and Mac Hatcher, construction‑truck impacts, potential loss of wildlife habitat and trees, and doubts that the developer’s proposed mitigation would prevent safety problems. Residents offered a recurring compromise: allow only emergency‑access connections to Hillview Lane rather than full public access.

Developer and applicant comments: the applicant and its representative told the board they were willing to accept the deferral while the county and highway commission review the interlocal and access questions. The applicant later told the board they expected the earliest practical schedule would likely be October but said November would be more realistic.

Next steps: the board deferred the annexation, rezoning and development‑plan items (motions recorded as unanimous) to Nov. 11, 2025, while the interlocal (approved 6–2 by the city) still must be taken up by the county. City staff said they will request or perform additional traffic analysis to reflect an emergency‑only Hillview Lane access option and to update other traffic assumptions before the matter returns to the board.

Meeting context: the Harlan items generated the meeting’s largest public turnout and the most extended public comment period. City staff characterized the implementation risk as high because the developer’s plan and some city approvals depend on the county’s interlocal decision.