Commissioners advance Paddocks Senior Living rezoning and land-use change; board splits 3-2 on first reading

The Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners voted on first reading to change the land-use designation and to rezone roughly 33.52 acres for the proposed Paddocks Senior Living community at 535 Pleasant Grove Road, advancing the project to a second reading in June after a divided vote.

Why it matters: The project would introduce senior‑oriented, maintenance‑free townhomes and amenity spaces to a portion of Mount Juliet. Commissioners and members of the public debated whether the development’s ownership and operating model — an owner‑operator, entry‑fee “equity” model in which the developer retains title to the real estate while residents purchase a right to occupy and receive a share of future resale proceeds — is functionally different from a rental product and how the model affects long‑term oversight, age restriction enforcement and unit turnover.

Ben Thompson, representing the developer and identifying himself as a prospective owner and second‑generation owner of a family senior‑housing business based in Charlotte, told the board the company builds and operates the communities it develops and provides on‑site services and maintenance. Bridal Shackleford of CSDG (engineering team) and the developer answered technical questions about grading, stormwater and the site layout.

Commissioners pressed staff and developers on stormwater, traffic and school impacts. Planning and public works staff said the residential portion is sited so runoff does not flow toward the historically flood‑prone Clearview neighborhood; design will include detention sized to meet local and state stormwater standards. Transportation staff explained that because the project targets senior residents the expected trip generation did not trigger the same signal or turn‑lane warrants as typical family housing, and developers committed to contributions and to phasing that staff said reduced near-term infrastructure demand. Commissioner Andrew Heffner noted that the project’s proposed commercial portion near Lebanon Road will require additional off‑site improvements and a pump station for sewer when developed.

Several commissioners asked about ownership and occupancy controls. The developer described an “equity” residency model: residents pay a buy‑in fee and a monthly service charge that covers maintenance and on‑site services; the developer retains title, operates the community, and guarantees residents a share of resale proceeds (for example, 90% return of resale under the developer’s typical structure). Commissioners discussed the potential for an HOA rental cap; the board declined to adopt an enforceable rental cap at first reading but allowed the developer to return with HOA language for second reading if the developer chose to include it.

Public safety, fire protection and timing were central. Fire staff said the site is outside the city’s current 5‑mile standard for optimal ISO classification and that response times would improve as Station 4 is sited and constructed, which the chief said could occur in roughly three to five years. Commissioners requested consideration of sprinklers for early phases; staff said state law limits the city’s ability to require sprinklers in one‑ and two‑family homes unless the commission adopts a specific ordinance to do so. The developer and staff discussed private roads and gated access; the project proposes private streets and gates with manned entrances.

How the commission acted: Commissioners approved the land‑use amendment (13E) and the rezoning/preliminary master development plan (13F) on first reading. The board amended the items on the record (including a reduction of base zoning density from RM‑16 to RM‑8 as requested by planning staff and several planning waivers) and approved them on first reading; the motion passed on a roll‑call voice sequence recorded in the transcript as a 3‑2 vote.

Next steps: The items return for a second reading; staff will prepare the requested HOA and sprinkler language and provide additional documentation on traffic contributions and sewer easement arrangements before final action.