Commission approves PUD amendments for Cumberland Oaks after public hearing

The Wilson County Commission on Feb. 18 approved two amendments to the R‑1 planned unit development (PUD) master plan for the Cumberland Oaks subdivision, a 406.81‑acre development owned by B and R Lebanon Investments, after a public hearing that drew neighbors, developers and planning staff.

At the hearing, adjacent residents and the developer’s team described competing priorities: neighbors urged preserving mature trees, existing sight lines and green space, while the developer and project consultants said the requested variances would protect large preserved areas, reduce overall disturbance and allow the development to deliver walking trails and other public amenities. Resident Tim Landstrom told commissioners, “I ask that you approve B and R Development's requested reduced lot sizes to accommodate placing the full allotment of its developed space East of the Watershed Ridge,” saying that the modified plan would keep most of the adjoining land “mostly untouched.”

The commission heard technical and design support from the developer and consultants. Shelby Black Stock, a principal of B and R Lebanon Investments, said the team met neighbors and planning staff and designed the PUD to “protect the green space” and deliver trails, community gardens and preserved forest patches. Planner Brian Wright and civil engineer Sam Chrisman described the project as a clustered, multi‑village neighborhood planned around open space, sustainable stormwater practices and preserved tree canopy; Chrisman told commissioners that denying the variances would “increase grading, drainage [and] disturbed area” and would remove planned public amenities.

The two separate amendments approved were: • A variance to allow 20‑foot building separations in specified PUD districts, affecting a set of lots across the plan. Commissioner McFarland indicated he would move the measure and the commission approved it with a recorded dissent by Commissioner Kurtz. The motion passed and was described on the record as approved. • A variance to allow smaller minimum lot sizes in the neighborhood center, neighborhood general and waterfront districts, with the developer committing to an average lot size of 12,500 square feet across the development. That amendment affects the majority of the lots (described in staff materials as 387 lots affected) and carried with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission; the county commission approved it without recorded opposition.

Commission discussion noted the Planning Commission’s unanimous positive recommendation (1/21/2025) and local traffic and utilities questions. Commissioner Hall asked whether the revised plan maintained open‑space percentages; staff responded that the plan maintains the same proportion of preserved open space previously approved (staff referenced a 59% preserved open‑space figure). Commissioners and applicants also discussed access and roadway improvements: the development will use Bates/Bradshaw connections and improvements (including a center turn lane) where required by right‑of‑way and road‑improvement commitments; the project will be served by the Lagardo utility district, which staff said contains a water tower in the area.

No formal motion to change the PUD’s public‑access or conservation commitments appeared in the hearing; the final action before the commission was approval of the two variances described above. Planning staff and the developer emphasized that the PUD proposals and variances would apply only to this property and that PUDs are considered on their individual merits.

Background and next steps: the application applied to 406.81 acres previously approved for 435 units; the two variances were presented to the full commission for final recommendation after the public hearing and vote. The Planning Commission’s recommendation, the developer’s PUD design standards and the county commission’s adopted variances will be reflected in the final master plan documents on file with Wilson County planning staff. Any further permit, subdivision or road‑improvement work will proceed under county permitting procedures.