Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Royalton Woods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Hill planners press developer for TVA access agreement, additional crossings on Royalton Woods plan
Summary
Planning commissioners asked the Royalton Woods applicant to provide a TVA agreement and detailed connectivity plans by Sept. 29, flagged a major thoroughfare deviation and potential single‑access safety issues, and recommended returning the item to another work session for further staff review.
Spring Hill — Planning staff and commissioners pressed the applicant for Royalton Woods Sections 3 and 4 to provide an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority and clearer plans for access and interconnectivity before a preliminary plat advances. The commission emphasized concerns about lots that would have only one entry or exit and about a major thoroughfare shown differently in the developer’s latest plan.
Staff planner Mr. Spires said the preliminary plat proposes 121 single‑family lots with open space and public streets but raised several issues, including a 175‑foot TVA easement along the east side of the site, a Crooked Creek stream buffer averaging about 60 feet, removal of multiple creek crossings and a nature trail from the original concept, and four detention ponds. He told the applicant the commission needs “an agreement with TVA allowing roadway passage under the easement” and requested a construction route plan, landscaping details and clarification of who will build a proposed north–south collector road; staff set a revision deadline of Sept. 29.
Developer representative Nathan Quinn, who said the project has been in planning nearly 20 years, told the commission the current submittal reduced the earlier concept by “over 30 homes” and that his team would provide construction routing and landscape details at the construction‑document (CD) stage. “We stayed well under the fire code requirement with those to keep those in a safe limit for a single ingress and egress,” Quinn said.
Commissioners pushed back on the removal of the collector road shown in earlier major‑thoroughfare exhibits and on the plan’s potential to preclude the street network shown in previous approvals. One commissioner warned bluntly to the applicant: “You’re not gonna get your plat approved” without demonstrating how the change aligns with existing development entitlements and nearby plans. Another commissioner recommended requiring the applicant to return to a later work session so staff and the applicant can vet the listed revisions before the item goes to a voting meeting.
The commission’s direction distinguished discussion from formal action: no vote was taken at the work session, and staff said it would distribute the requested exhibits to commissioners and coordinate with the applicant on resubmittal materials. The commission also asked staff to locate and share the 2017 master exhibit that shows the original interconnectivity through adjacent developments.
What’s next: Staff requested the applicant supply the TVA agreement, construction route plan, landscaping and coordination documentation by Sept. 29; the commission signaled it will hold another work session and will not advance the plat to a voting meeting until those concerns are addressed.
