Council committee approves transfer of historic-zoning staff to Planning with amendments

Council Member Benedict proposed and the Planning & Zoning Committee approved changes to how Nashville organizes historic‑preservation staff and processes, voting to transfer Metro Historic Zoning staff to the Planning Department and to create a new historic zoning administrator position.

The change, filed as BL 20 25 7 42, passed in committee after adoption of a substitute and three amendments. The final committee vote on the substituted, amended ordinance was 10 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention.

The ordinance moves the staff who provide administrative support to the Metro Historic Zoning Commission into the Planning Department, creates an official historic zoning administrator who would report to the director of planning, and specifies that the historic zoning administrator — not the Metro Historical Commission director — would have authority under the code to place and clear holds related to demolition‑permit reviews. The sponsor also set a target effective date for the staff transfer of July 1 to align with the budget cycle.

Council Member Benedict, the bill sponsor, said the substitute “does not make any immediate changes” to historic overlays or to the Metro Historical Commission’s programming and described the move as intended to “provide a clean break in the budget process” and to smooth personnel transitions. Benedict also said the new historic zoning administrator must meet qualifications “relative to zoning” similar to those required for the Metro Historical Commission director.

Lucy Kemp, director of the Planning Department, told the committee the change is intended to scale preservation work and improve cross‑department collaboration. Tim Walker, executive director of the Metro Historical Commission, said he could not address pending state legislation but asked that the mayor’s liaison be consulted about actions at the state level.

Public speakers Lou Anne Brown and Craig Patterson, each identified as presidents of neighborhood associations, had urged the committee to defer the bill so neighborhoods could have more public engagement; Brown said, “I respectfully ask for a deferral of this bill.” Both speakers said their neighborhood groups oppose the bill as filed and want more time for outreach.

Committee members debated two main points throughout the hearing: (1) whether the proposed change would improve coordination between historic review and planning/zoning work, and (2) whether shifting administrative authority would weaken public preservation protections. Several members asked for assurances about a memorandum of understanding, staff civil‑service protections, the role of the Metro Historical Commission after the transfer, and how demolition holds would be processed.

Amendments adopted in committee clarified legislative intent and staffing expectations and addressed demolition review authority. Amendment 1 restored explanatory recitals to the bill. Amendment 2 returned demolition‑hold authority for properties not in historic overlays to the Metro Historical Commission director (the committee adopted a version of Amendment 2; the substitute as amended ultimately locates the demolition‑hold authority with the newly created historic zoning administrator, while the committee-approved Amendment 2 clarified procedures for demo holds on properties not in overlays). Amendment 3 added non‑mandatory language encouraging hiring persons with historic‑preservation experience for the new zoning staff role.

Directors and staff said a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Planning and the Metro Historical Commission would be developed to set programmatic details, describe staffing protections, and outline how administrative approvals and commission responsibilities will operate moving forward. Director Kemp said a draft of topics to be covered in the MOU could be provided to council members prior to any final personnel changes.

Several council members cited concern about pending state legislation that, as described by the sponsor and the mayor’s office liaison, could remove local historic‑zoning authority in the Tourism Development Zone (TDZ) if Nashville did not act quickly. The mayor’s office told the committee it supports the substitute and that timing was driven by concern about state action; the office identified two state bills of concern.

The committee debated a one‑meeting deferral motion; that deferral failed in committee (3 in favor, 9 opposed). After further discussion the committee approved the substitute with amendments and then voted to approve the bill as substituted with amendments 1, 2 and 3 (final committee tally 10–1–1). The sponsor indicated a public hearing would be scheduled on second reading.

What the ordinance does not change, the sponsor and directors emphasized, is the composition of either commission nor existing historic overlays; they said conservation overlays and current protections remain under council control and that any overlay changes would still require council action.

Next steps: the sponsor indicated a public hearing would be scheduled for the council’s next available meeting, and staff said programmatic MOU language and a staff‑transition plan would be developed to govern the transfer and to document civil‑service protections for affected employees.

Votes at a glance for BL 20 25 7 42 • Substitute adopted (date/time in committee): motion carried (voice vote recorded as “motion carries”). • Amendment 1 (recitals) — adopted (voice vote recorded as “motion carries”). • Amendment 2 (demolition‑hold clarification) — adopted 8 in favor, 4 opposed, 0 abstentions (committee recorded vote during amendment debate); committee later incorporated related language in the substitute as amended. • Amendment 3 (hire preference language) — adopted 12 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions. • Final committee approval of BL 20 25 7 42 as substituted with amendments 1–3 — 10 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention.

Clarifying details from the hearing: the sponsor set a proposed staff transfer effective date of July 1; demolition holds operated under current code as a 90‑day documentation/notification period and would continue as a hold process under the revised administrative structure; the sponsor and Planning said staff civil‑service protections would be maintained and reviewed with HR; the Planning Department said it would provide an MOU template describing roles and processes prior to final personnel changes.

Ending: Committee members and staff said they expect further public engagement and a programmatic MOU before the transfer is completed. The council committee advanced the ordinance to the full council process with the substitute and three amendments approved in committee.