Planning Commission disapproves 77‑lot Schuler subdivision amid traffic, historic and code‑eligibility concerns

Vice Chair (Commissioner 7) and the Metro Nashville Planning Commission on Dec. 8 disapproved a concept plan that would have created 77 lots on a roughly 34.8‑acre tract along Clarksville Pike in Whites Creek. The commission’s motion said the proposal was not consistent with the T3 Neighborhood Maintenance (T3NM) policy guiding suburban neighborhood character, and the motion passed by voice vote.

Staff presented the concept plan, describing a compact development under the subdivision regulations with 77 lots, roughly 12.36 acres of open space and lot sizes ranging from about 7,500 square feet to more than 22,000 square feet. The applicant, Patrick Napier of the project team, said the plan responds to a housing deficit, incorporates sidewalks and agency‑recommended conditions, and that agency reviews recommend approval with conditions.

Dozens of neighbors and community groups opposed the plan at the public hearing. Speakers raised traffic and safety on Clarksville Pike and Buena Vista Pike, argued the proposed lot sizes clash with the surrounding rural character, and flagged cultural and archaeological concerns. The Native History Association and the Whites Creek Historical Society requested a Phase I archaeological survey and asked that the commission require it as a condition of approval.

Opponents also contended the developer had altered parcel boundaries — carving off 5‑acre tracts — in a way that, they said, removed natural features from the tract under review and thereby made the compact development option improperly eligible. Multiple speakers, including landowners adjacent to the site and representatives of local conservation groups, argued the property still contains natural features (including tree protection zones) that should trigger mandatory conservation development standards rather than compact development.

The applicant and project representative disputed claims of preemptive clearing and said no trees had been removed from the parcel before submission; they said they would engage in tree preservation and conservation easements during final plat review. Planning staff presented technical findings that, under the parcel configuration before the commission, the proposal complied with compact development numerical tests and recommended approval with conditions.

In deliberations commissioners debated two separate questions: whether the current parcel before them met the objective eligibility tests for compact development and whether the proposed lot sizes and pattern maintain the character required by the T3NM policy. Several commissioners said they were unconvinced the proposal preserved neighborhood character and therefore moved to disapprove staff’s recommendation. Vice Chair (Commissioner 7) made the motion to disapprove; Commissioner 37 seconded. After a brief legal clarification, the commission voted in favor of disapproval; Director (Speaker 21) requested that the basis — inconsistency with the T3 Neighborhood Maintenance policy — be entered into the record.

What happens next: Disapproval of a concept plan means the applicant may revise and resubmit a new layout or pursue alternative subdivision approaches consistent with existing zoning and subdivision regulations. The commission noted that the property remains zoned RS‑15 and that other designs or a conservation development path remain available.