Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plats And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commission over "sheds" subdivision, question plat approval process
Summary
Residents urged the Regional Planning Commission to investigate whether a two-lot subdivision and subsequent building approvals for a parcel on Jim Henry Road were processed correctly after they said the matter was rejected by RPC and then approved in-house by county staff.
Several residents used the public-comment period to press the Regional Planning Commission about a high-profile parcel (2251 Jim Henry Road) where large outbuildings (referred to in comments as "sheds") were approved in December 2024 after the RPC had rejected a prior proposal in November.
Speakers including Kathleen Billers, William Billers and Jim Fox said the RPC had denied the sheds "without prejudice" in November but county staff later signed a plat and approved the work in-house in December. Kathleen Billers told the commission she searched local newspaper archives and RPC agendas and could not find any public meeting where the commission officially delegated plat-signing authority to staff. She cited Tennessee subdivision law in questioning whether the plat had been properly recorded: "No plat or plan of subdivision of land up into 2 or more lots shall be admitted to the land records . . . until said plat has received final approval in writing by the RPC and duly signed by the RPC secretary," she read from the statutes she cited.
William Billers and Jim Fox asked the commission to investigate the administrative record and, if necessary, to issue a stop-work order or to have the parcel returned for RPC review. Jim Fox said the RPC itself had instructed the owner and involved county departments to return to RPC for a full review but, in his words, "to our surprise, the 2-lot subdivision was approved, without going before this board."
Planning staff and the county clerk told the commission they had searched records and that Tennessee law and county practice had changed over time; staff explained that recorded practice had allowed staff to approve plats in certain circumstances, but the commission asked staff to produce documentary evidence of any official delegation and to confirm whether the RPC secretary's signature was present on the recorded plat. Commissioners agreed to postpone a formal decision on procedural remedies and to pursue documentation; they also agreed that future plats will require the planning commission secretary's signature for the record unless the commission adopts a formal delegation.
The commission asked staff to return with an administrative record showing how the prior plat was handled and what signatures were recorded with the register of deeds.
