Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County adopts 5-acre minimum for A-1 zoning, excludes urban growth boundaries; Tullahoma planners discuss local effects
Summary
Telehoma Regional Planning Commission members discussed last week’s Coffee County Commission decision to require a 5‑acre minimum for A‑1 lots while exempting properties inside municipal urban growth boundaries (UGBs), and staff clarified how the change affects parcels inside Tullahoma’s UGB that have not yet been rezoned.
Telehoma Regional Planning Commission members discussed how a recent Coffee County Commission zoning change requiring a 5‑acre minimum lot size for A‑1 parcels — with an explicit exclusion for municipal urban growth boundaries (UGBs) — could affect properties within Tullahoma’s UGB that remain under county zoning.
The discussion followed a report from a commissioner summarizing the county vote and staff clarifications about how local review and rezoning would interact with the new county rules.
The county commission “passed a work of change to their zoning regs to limit A‑1 5 acre minimum lot sizes excluding urban growth boundaries,” a commissioner told the panel. Chairman Paul Schwere opened the item and asked staff to explain local consequences.
City planning staff member Mr. Luthy said properties physically inside Tullahoma’s UGB that have not been rezoned remain governed by Coffee County zoning until they undergo municipal rezoning. He explained, “any property that is in the UGB that we have not rezoned is still under and controlled by the county zoning.”
Luthy and the commission clarified the review path for subdivision and rezoning applications: the regional planning commission reviews subdivision and rezoning applications within the UGB; once the commission acts on a subdivision, staff forwards the minutes and application to Coffee County for final action. Luthy summarized the procedural outcome options: if the Regional Planning Commission denies a subdivision, the applicant may request that the full Coffee County Commission review and either overturn or uphold the regional commission’s decision.
Commissioners emphasized that the county amendment leaves existing municipal UGB rules unchanged until individual properties are rezoned into the city’s zones. One commissioner noted uncertainty about exact lot‑size thresholds inside the UGB prior to rezoning; staff said those thresholds are controlled by the county until the municipal rezoning occurs.
No formal action by the Telehoma commission was taken on the county ordinance during the meeting; the discussion was informational and procedural.
The matter matters because the change affects landowners inside the UGB who may be subject to county minimums until municipal rezoning proceedings occur, and because the county retains a review avenue that can override the regional commission’s denial of a subdivision.
Staff recommended commissioners consider the interplay of county zoning changes and municipal rezoning timelines when advising applicants or preparing future zoning or subdivision code updates. The commission did not set any new municipal policy at the meeting.
