Planning department presents housing and infrastructure study, urges targeted zoning changes

Planning Department staff and a consulting team summarized a housing and infrastructure study and related materials during the Metro Human Relations Commission meeting on Aug. 13, 2025. The presentation said the county may need 90,000 to 110,000 additional housing units over the next 10 years and that current zoning and infrastructure will not accommodate that level of growth without changes.

Greg Batson, identified on the record as a consultant with National Planning, said, “This is a study that was requested by council … to take a look at whether our zoning code or regulations negatively affect housing supply, affordability, and equity, and what is needed to deliver housing products that address Nashville's current and long‑term affordability needs.” Batson and Metro planning staff emphasized that the study focuses on market‑rate or market‑driven housing supply (the zoning side) while other Metro divisions handle subsidized affordable housing programs.

The presentation compared several forecasts. It reported that 70,000 additional units could be built under the current zoning map but that planning staff and consultants estimate a reasonable range of need between 90,000 and 110,000 units for the next decade. Batson said that using recent development rates would point toward approximately 70,000 units and that other consultants recommended about 90,000 units, with a potential buffer of 20,000 to account for variation.

To close the gap, the study proposes three lenses: abundant housing (increasing allowable housing types), necessary infrastructure (aligning investments such as water, sewer, curb/gutter and transit), and distinctive communities (design standards to fit new housing into existing neighborhoods). As an example of regulatory change, planners proposed two new zoning districts—“residential neighborhood” (house‑scale, smaller infill) and “residential limited” (middle‑scale housing such as multiplexes, courtyard flats and townhomes) designed with differing suburban/urban standards.

Batson described the goal as creating more predictable rules that allow middle‑scale housing in appropriate locations and that include form‑based standards: “We want requirements for how the building engages with the public realm through what we call frontages … porches, dooryards, stoops,” he said.

The team highlighted equity and historical context, presenting analysis back to the 1930s showing how early zoning and other local and federal practices contributed to segregated patterns. Batson cautioned against broad, blunt changes and recommended targeted remapping and careful community engagement, noting that some lower‑density zoning districts are more prevalent, on a percentage basis, in majority‑Black and majority‑Hispanic census tracts.

On infrastructure, the report notes significant limitations: large portions of suburban and rural areas lack curb, gutter and sanitary sewer, increasing the cost and complexity of incremental infill. The presentation said Tennessee law prohibits Metro from charging traditional impact fees, which reduces the city’s options to fund some infrastructure tied to growth.

Planning staff released draft regulatory language and an economic feasibility analysis for public review the week before the meeting. The materials include an initial voluntary attainable housing incentive (a state tool) that would allow additional height in exchange for a percentage of affordable units in some contexts.

Commissioners asked about likely costs, market assumptions and how new rules would affect construction cost and affordability. Batson and planning staff said feasibility modeling showed middle‑housing prototypes could reduce ownership prices (presented range: $200,000–$344,000 lower per unit in modeled ownership prototypes) and lower monthly rents by $300–$600 in modeled rental prototypes compared with current conventional new construction in many locations. They emphasized that those figures compare new construction to new construction and do not directly change the price of existing homes.

Planning staff encouraged commissioners and the public to review the draft documents during the open comment period and to participate in scheduled in‑person and virtual public meetings.

Ending: Planning staff said they will continue outreach and refine recommendations. Commissioners announced plans to form a housing committee within the Human Relations Commission to review materials and provide input.