Wilson County committee votes to seek stay of chancellor—s decision as residents debate lot-size changes

The Wilson County Planning and Zoning Committee voted to ask the chancellor—s court to stay a recent ruling that invalidated a proposed zoning ordinance amendment, and agreed to convene again next week to consider restarting the ordinance process.

The vote to request a stay on the chancellor—s order passed after a motion and second; committee members then directed staff to prepare an appeal filing and a motion for a stay. Planning Director Chris said, "If you're going to appeal, you've got to do it by September 25," urging the committee to act within the court—s deadline.

Committee chair Robert opened the meeting and took public comment before the committee discussed procedural and policy options. Several residents urged keeping larger minimum lot sizes in unincorporated areas. Jason Denton, who identified himself as a fifth-generation farmer and resident of Coles Ferry Pike, said the proposal would prevent him from subdividing small family parcels: "This law—s being proposed is gonna keep me from doing a dream of mine," he said, describing how current proposals would affect his 3.97-acre parcel.

Other commenters took a systems-level view. Ken Young, addressing on wastewater and on-site systems, said he reviewed 44 water-authority permits and identified 13 systems serving 65 or more homes; "8 out of the 13 have serious issues," he told the committee, adding that "a 60% failure rate is not doing great." His remarks framed some committee members— concerns that higher density could strain wastewater infrastructure.

Committee discussion centered on two interrelated questions: whether to appeal the chancellor—s procedural ruling and how to restart or refile an ordinance so it would be legally defensible. Several members said the ruling primarily addressed procedure: they described the chancellor—s finding as tied to how an amendment was presented and whether subsequent amendments required new public notice.

Members and commenters repeatedly referenced specific lot-size and lot-area measures debated earlier in the process: options discussed included minimum lots of 2 acres, 1 acre, and numeric thresholds expressed as square footage (80,000 sq. ft., 60,000 sq. ft., 40,000 sq. ft.). Residents in favor of larger minimums said two-acre minimums strike a balance between growth and preserving rural infrastructure; others noted that some neighboring counties have different thresholds (one commenter noted Sumner County and Rutherford County as comparisons).

On procedure, committee members discussed routes forward: (1) file an appeal of the chancellor—s order; (2) restart the zoning amendment process and re-notice hearings to ensure the record is defensible; or (3) pursue both — file an appeal to preserve appellate rights while re-initiating the legislative process. The chair and Planning Director said the committee has limited time to preserve appeal rights and that restarting the process could proceed in parallel.

After public comment and discussion, the committee voted to ask the chancellor—s court for a stay while the county pursues an appeal; they also scheduled a special call meeting next Tuesday to work on the ordinance wording and next steps. Planning staff said they would prepare the appeal filing and draft motions for the chancellor—s court.

The committee also approved the meeting minutes earlier in the session by voice vote.

What the committee did not do tonight: the committee did not adopt any zoning ordinance changes on final passage, did not change statutory requirements, and did not resolve the broader dispute between the planning commission—s recommendation and the county commission—s substitute version. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that any final legislative resolution would have to come back through the planning commission and full county commission with proper public notice to avoid further procedural challenge.

The committee expects to reconvene quickly to draft precise ordinance language to send to the planning commission and to the full county commission, and staff will prepare the appeal and a motion seeking a stay of the chancellor—s order.