Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs annexation of York Road parcel but withholds recommendation to rezone to CD‑3
Summary
The commission recommended annexation of an unaddressed York Road parcel into the Town of Nolensville but did not support the applicant’s simultaneous request to rezone the property to Character District CD‑3; staff noted sewer availability from Metro is not currently provided and the applicant proceeds at risk.
The Nolensville Planning Commission voted April 8 to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve annexation and an associated plan of service for an unaddressed parcel on York Road (Map 058, Parcel 05200) but did not recommend the applicant’s requested rezoning to Character District CD‑3.
Staff told the commission the parcel is contiguous to town limits, lies inside the town’s urban growth boundary and, in the plan of service, the applicant was made aware that Metro Water Sewer Authority is not issuing sewer-availability letters at this time. “The applicant is moving at risk,” staff said. The staff report combined rezoning and annexation materials and recommended CD‑3; staff noted similar lot sizes in neighboring Annecy as part of its rationale.
The applicant said the goal of annexation and rezoning was to follow Nolensville standards rather than county guidance and to pursue a CD‑3 neighborhood form. The applicant’s concept plan, shown to the Board of Commissioners and presented for context, showed topographic constraints including a dry creek bed and steep areas that would limit developable acreage in the northern part of the parcel.
Commissioners raised land‑use and procedural concerns. Several said the town intended lower-density character districts at the urban growth boundary and expressed reluctance to “upzone” at the perimeter without a sketch plan. One commissioner summarized the concern: approving annexation does not automatically require the commission to approve a change to CD‑3. Counsel and staff confirmed that newly annexed property receives an initial zoning of CD‑2 or CD‑2L under the zoning ordinance if rezoning is not approved.
On the votes, the commission recorded a unanimous recommendation in favor of annexation; the separate motion to recommend rezoning to CD‑3 failed (the minutes record an abstention and the motion ultimately did not pass). The planning commission made clear the annexation recommendation would proceed to the Board of Commissioners without an endorsement for CD‑3.
Commissioners and staff also discussed a related code question about whether a sketch plan is required for rezoning; staff and counsel said the ordinance language treats site‑specific rezoning differently than development of already‑zoned land, and clarified the town could require a sketch plan when the rezoning request changes entitlements. The applicant indicated they might withdraw the rezoning request if annexation proceeds without rezoning and instead pursue county development, or else revise the submittal for later consideration.
The planning commission’s action means the annexation recommendation will be sent to the Board of Commissioners, and the rezoning request will arrive at the Board without a favorable recommendation from the planning commission.
