Public Works and Planning Committee forwards Plan Rutherford to full commission

The Rutherford County Public Works and Planning Committee voted to transmit Plan Rutherford to the full Board of Commissioners for its consideration, after Doug DeMasi, the county'as Planning and Engineering director, summarized the document and the Planning Commission'as recent adoption.

DeMasi told the committee the Planning Commission adopted Plan Rutherford on Sept. 8, 2025, after a multi-year process. "The discussions on this actually started back in 2021," he said, and the adopted packet on the committee members' iPads includes maps, a chapter of recommended actions and an implementation section.

The plan divides unincorporated Rutherford County into three broad character areas: rural preserve (generally one unit per five acres), rural living (1 unit per acre to 1 unit per five acres) and county suburban (roughly 3'a0to'a05 units per acre). DeMasi said staff and the Planning Commission made edits during the process'a0'a0including expanding county-suburban designations near Exit 89 and adding voluntary agricultural district language in the rural preserve'a0'a0and that the adoption by the Planning Commission did not change current zoning or subdivision regulations.

Committee members spent much of the meeting discussing process and timing. DeMasi reminded the committee that Tennessee law requires a public hearing with at least 30 days' notice before the county commission may adopt a plan. "Tennessee Code Annotated 13-3-304 requires a public hearing with 30 days notice prior to the adoption of the plan," he said. The committee debated whether forwarding the plan to the full board would limit commissioners' ability to propose changes; DeMasi and the county attorney affirmed that the full board can request Planning Commission review of amendments and that the Planning Commission then has a statutory window to respond.

Commissioner Peay moved to transmit the Planning Commission resolution and the adopted Plan Rutherford to the Board of Commissioners; the motion was seconded and the committee approved it in a roll-call vote (see Actions at bottom). Chairman Johnson and a majority of members voted to forward the plan; Commissioner James voted no.

DeMasi emphasized that the plan's chapter of recommended actions is advisory: some items will be pursued and others may not, because many actions would require further time, resources or separate ordinance changes. He also said any future zoning or subdivision-code changes would be separate processes requiring their own public hearings and review.

The committee and staff agreed next steps are to set a public hearing date (which must be advertised at least 30 days in advance) and then allow the full Board of Commissioners to consider adoption, ask the Planning Commission for changes, or take other action.

The committee'as vote to transmit guarantees at least one public hearing at the county level before the Board of Commissioners considers adoption; commissioners at the meeting stressed that forwarding the plan preserves the board'as opportunity to propose amendments and to hold public deliberations before any county adoption vote.