Mount Juliet planning panel approves Elliott Reserve townhomes despite neighborhood protests over buffers and drainage

The Mount Juliet Municipal Planning Commission voted to approve the final master development plan for the Villas at Elliott Reserve on Feb. 19, 2026, despite prolonged public testimony from neighbors who say the developer disturbed required buffers and caused drainage problems. The approval was made subject to staff conditions; several commissioners recorded negative votes and explained their concerns.

Neighbors from the adjoining Nichols Vale subdivision described what they called unauthorized site grading and removal of vegetation in a 20-foot "no-touch" buffer on Montrose Drive, runoff and repeated drainage repairs paid for by homeowners, and loss of privacy near backyard property lines. Shauna Summers told the commission that contractors began grading without erosion controls, removed trees and took soil to the Montrose property line. "We have paid thousands of dollars for French drains, surveys and legal consultations," said a speaker representing affected residents. Multiple residents asked the commission to delay action and to require the developer to restore buffers and provide documentary evidence that conservation easements and buffer responsibilities have been preserved.

The developer and engineering representative disputed several assertions and said the site team corrected an earlier 3-foot encroachment into a non-disturbance buffer after city stormwater staff issued a stop-work order. The developer said temporary sediment controls and a sediment pond are in place and that the plan will ultimately provide the landscape buffer required by code. Planning staff and Public Works confirmed staff intervened, that the encroachment was addressed, and that the developer must meet final drainage and landscape-buffer requirements at construction-plan review.

Commission deliberations centered on two related issues: whether the presented FMDP met the city's requirement of "substantial compliance" with the previously approved PMDP and whether outstanding enforcement and restoration issues required denial or deferral. Planning staff said the FMDP otherwise complies with regulations, that the encroachment had been remediated, and that additional landscaping and drainage documentation will be required before construction. Several commissioners said that, even if the plan now meets the technical requirements, the commission needed firmer assurances and follow-through because residents reported impacts already suffered.

A motion to approve the FMDP subject to staff comments carried, with several commissioners voting no; dissenting commissioners cited the buffer disturbances, unresolved neighborhood impacts, and the need for clearer, enforceable restoration commitments. The developer said staff and the developer would continue working to resolve remaining issues and invited neighbors to contact the project team directly.

Next steps: the approval allows the developer to proceed toward construction-plan submittals, where the city will require the detailed drainage report, verified buffer and landscape plans, and any necessary permits or remediation measures. The commission noted it will hold a follow-up presentation (already scheduled per a commissioner’s request) covering the history and remediation actions taken on the site.