Hickman County rejects rezoning at 9231 Bates Trail after heated public comment; land-use amendments tabled

HICKMAN COUNTY — The Hickman County legislative body on Nov. 24 declined to adopt Resolution 25-32, a request to rezone property at 9231 Bates Trail from A-1 to R-1, after residents and commissioners sparred over road safety, minimum-lot-size language and whether the county must accept the planning commission’s recommendation.

The vote on Resolution 25-32 resulted in a divided roll call recorded in the transcript as six in favor, six opposed, one pass and one absence; the chair declared the resolution not adopted. Applicant Lily Page told commissioners her parcel is within the county’s designated growth area and has public water and roadway access, and she said the request had been recommended by the Planning and Zoning board. Page also said she would sign onto a pending lawsuit against the county if the rezoning is denied.

The public-comment period focused heavily on Bates Trail, where neighbors said the road is narrow (11–12 feet in places) and has dangerous blind spots. Multiple residents, including Chris Gellum and Ethan Hudgins, said allowing smaller R-1 lot sizes on that road would create safety hazards and treat the applicant to a different standard than long-term residents. Supporters of the rezoning and others urged commissioners to apply rules consistently and noted the parcel sits in the county’s growth zone.

County Attorney Dan McMann advised commissioners that they have broad discretion under Tennessee law to approve or deny rezoning requests and are not bound by the planning commission’s recommendation; he said community opposition can provide a rational basis for denial, citing case law referenced in his remarks.

Beyond the single rezoning, commissioners spent more than an hour on the county’s draft land-use plan. Commissioner Guianakis proposed 11 pages of text amendments designed to remove specific acreage references (for example, striking '3 to 15 acres' and similar density parentheticals) and to clarify compatibility between zoning districts and place types. Supporters of the proposed edits argued the changes would prevent the plan from imposing lot-size limits beyond existing A-1 zoning and would preserve local discretion.

Opponents — including several commissioners and many residents who addressed the commission — said the proposed changes warranted more time for review. Concerns included the legal and fiscal implications of changing density language, whether the county had sufficient infrastructure data (water, sewer, emergency services) to support place-type changes, and the timing of adopting a new plan so close to ongoing public discussion.

Faced with those concerns, the body voted to table the motion to amend the land-use plan and to return the matter at a later meeting so commissioners and the public can review the proposed edits. The chair noted that until a new plan is adopted, the existing land-use rules remain in effect.

What’s next: Resolution 25-32 remains not adopted. The proposed land-use text amendments will be posted for public review and taken up at the commission’s next convening, with the planning consultant poised to incorporate edits once the commission indicates majority support.

Quotes from the meeting: "We came up with some amendment suggestions...that would please the majority of the people who had various objections to the plan," said Chris Clark, a county resident who proposed adding capacity studies for infrastructure before zoning decisions.

"My vote will be no different than it was a couple of months ago. There's no new information," said one commissioner during discussion before the roll call.

"I respect the responsibility each of you commissioners hold...I ask for your support tonight so I can move forward," said Lily Page, the applicant for 9231 Bates Trail.

Ending: The commission tabled the proposed land-use text amendments for additional review and adjourned the meeting after concluding remaining business.