Residents say proposed resort, countywide zoning changes conflict with Cheatham County growth plan
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Residents urged the Cheatham County Commission to reject zoning amendments that would allow a resort model they say conflicts with the county’s approved growth plan; speakers cited a petition with roughly 2,200 signatures and asked commissioners to demand a full planning commission recommendation before action.
A group of residents on March 9 urged the Cheatham County Commission to block a developer-backed zoning change they say would permit resort-style development across rural parts of the county.
Linda Ryder told the commission she leads a Change.org petition opposing the proposed resort at "Bells Reserve," which she said had about 2,217 signatures. Ryder argued the proposed countywide zoning amendments — and any resort built under them — would conflict with the county growth plan and cited what she described as a state requirement: "Tennessee code 6 58 107," saying land-use decisions "shall" be consistent with the growth plan.
Nearby property owner Jim Delanis said he and other neighbors have asked for due diligence documents from the planning commission and found little responsiveness from staff. He told commissioners the developer’s materials project a roughly $250,000,000 development and that the site is accessed by a narrow private easement, saying the county should not rely on developer representations alone.
Other commenters raised related concerns: Lisa Bolt said preserving the Narrows of the Harpeth and limiting traffic on two-lane roads should take priority over short-term road fixes; Susan Taylor questioned how many county staff hours had been spent working with the developer and said projected tax benefits may not materialize.
County Attorney Bligh and staff repeatedly explained that the process is driven in large part by the planning commission: the planning commission must produce a proposal or recommendation that would then come to the county commission for a formal vote. Commissioners and staff said the planning commission has been considering a draft that could apply across the county and has not yet made a final recommendation.
Several commissioners described frustration with social-media attacks and said residents and commissioners deserve clarity. Commissioner comments focused on process and timing — including minimum acreage thresholds and buffer distances the planning commission is still debating — rather than endorsing or rejecting the substance of any particular resort plan.
Why it matters: Speakers told the commission the zoning change could alter where large commercial mixed-use projects are permitted, potentially enabling projects beyond the current growth areas. County staff and the attorney said they will not be able to act until a proposal/recommendation is formally transmitted from the planning commission.
What’s next: Commissioners said they expect the planning commission to continue drafting the ordinance and that any formal change will require a planning commission recommendation before the county commission can adopt it.