Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bells Reserve Rural Resort topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Cheatham County to drop countywide zoning change for 'Bells Reserve' rural resort
Summary
Multiple residents testified against a proposed countywide zoning amendment that would permit rural-resort commercial development (referred to as Bells/Veil Reserve), raising concerns about road upgrades, water use from the Harpeth River, septic failures and light pollution; the county attorney confirmed receipt of a public-records request about the project.
Dozens of residents told the Cheatham County Commission they oppose a proposed countywide zoning amendment that would allow large “rural resort” developments such as the project variously called Bells Reserve or Veil Reserve.
Alex Faulkner, a 6th District resident who said he lives next to the proposed development, urged commissioners to reject the proposal and warned of environmental risks. “I’m concerned with the volume of water that is pulled out of [the Harpeth River] each year for housing development,” Faulkner said, adding he has seen “failed septic systems that cause devastating pollution to our local waterways.”
John Faulkner, also a 6th District resident, told the commission the amendment would violate the county’s long-standing growth plan and recalled work in the 1990s that shaped the plan’s limits on development. “We should respect the fact that thousands and thousands of hours were spent and went into our county’s growth plan,” he said, and urged the commission to “do the right thing and drop this.”
JC Whittaker, who said he lives directly across from the proposed Bells Reserve site, delivered a petition he said contains 1,808 signatures opposing the development and described the idea of hotels and thousands of weekend visitors as a “gut punch” to long-time residents.
Speakers argued the amendment would shift substantial infrastructure costs — road widening and water-line extensions — onto the county or neighboring residents and would favor wealthy developers able to pay for large upgrades. An unidentified commenter earlier in the public-comment period characterized the zoning change as “an attempt to find a way around the law to allow their development.”
County staff earlier on the agenda described work the building department has done related to the project and the planning commission’s review; at the meeting the county attorney notified commissioners that the county has received a public-records request covering Bells Reserve and the rural-resort rezoning and asked officials to collect any relevant records, including emails or texts, so the county can comply.
No formal vote on the rezoning amendment was recorded at the meeting; several residents urged the planning commission and county commission to drop the proposal or limit any changes to planned growth areas where utilities and wider roads already exist. The county attorney said staff will assemble responsive records and return to the commission as required by the public-records request.
