Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilson County board denies request to increase gated-community lot limit from 50 to 75
Summary
The board denied a developer's request to raise the county's 50-lot cap for gated communities to 75 at a Hartsville Pike site, following resident concerns about traffic and flood/septic impacts and staff recommendation to deny. The vote passed 3-2.
The Wilson County board denied a developer’s request to allow 75 lots behind a gate at a proposed Hartsville Pike subdivision, upholding the county’s 50-lot limit for gated communities.
Hayden Deberry of Lee Smith & Associates, speaking for Hartsville Development LLC, asked the board to permit 75 lots on a roughly 170.59-acre tract, saying most proposed lots exceed the 40,000-square-foot minimum and that the developer had coordinated with the Tennessee Department of Transportation on a recommended southbound left-turn lane and a northbound deceleration lane to improve access. Planning staff told the board the zoning ordinance sets a 50-lot maximum for gated communities and recommended denial.
Residents who live along Hartsville Pike urged denial on safety and environmental grounds. “I pull in my driveway. People do not slow down,” said Mia Bowling, a neighbor, describing fast traffic where the four-lane section narrows to two lanes. Another resident raised concerns about Spring Creek and floodplain impacts and asked whether the development would use sewer, lagoon, or septic systems and how wastewater would be handled during wet seasons.
Board members questioned whether the gated limit was the right measure, noted alternative development paths such as a PUD or cluster subdivision, and discussed private deed restrictions and usable building envelopes outside the floodplain. Planning staff clarified that the board’s role is to decide how many lots may be allowed behind a gate; site-plan and density calculations remain the planning commission’s domain. The planning commission was scheduled to hear the plat related to the proposal the following day.
After extended discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance based on staff recommendation; the motion carried on a show-of-hands vote, three in favor and two opposed. The request to increase the gated-community limit from 50 to 75 was denied.
The planning commission will still consider the developer’s plat and any alternative development path the applicant may pursue; the board’s action applied only to the specific request to raise the gated-community lot cap.
