Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident challenges zoning after manufactured home placed on McGinn Drive; city staff cite state law limiting local prohibitions
Summary
A resident asked the board to enforce local code after a manufactured home was placed on McGinn Drive; staff and legal counsel said Tennessee law and MTAS guidance limit cities’ ability to prohibit manufactured (double-wide) homes in residential districts.
A McGinn Drive resident told the McMinnville board he believes a recently placed manufactured home is not permitted under the city’s R-1 zoning and urged officials to address the matter. The resident cited city zoning code language excluding mobile homes from single-family detached districts.
During public comment, Jeremy Hamilton identified the parcel and read state- and local-code references that raised his concern. He said he had contacted the office of U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty and received a written reply indicating the issue was a local zoning matter.
City staff and legal counsel responded during the meeting that Tennessee law constrains a municipality’s ability to exclude manufactured homes. The city attorney (Sean Garrett, referenced in the meeting) and staff cited Tennessee Code Annotated §13-24-201 and guidance from MTAS, explaining that cities cannot prohibit standard double-wide manufactured homes or modular homes from placement on land zoned for residential use. Staff said single-wide pre‑HUD mobile homes can be regulated or excluded by local zoning, but the broader category of manufactured double-wide units is protected under state statute and MTAS analysis.
The exchange became tense during the public comment period; the resident and at least one board member disputed staff’s legal interpretation. No formal action or enforcement step was taken in the meeting record; staff advised that the statutory interpretation and MTAS guidance had been reviewed and that the item would not be resolved by the public comment itself.
Ending: Staff and legal counsel directed the resident to pursue formal code‑enforcement channels if he intended to press for an administrative or legal remedy; the board did not take immediate action during that meeting.
