Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cheatham County approves five rezoning requests and sends amended C5 rules back to Planning Commission

Cheatham County Legislative Body · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners approved five individual rezoning requests (parcel-level changes) and amended proposed C5 Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use District rules to require 25% commercial development within future residential projects, sending the amendment back to the Planning Commission for review.

Cheatham County’s legislative body approved five advertised rezoning petitions and amended a proposed change to the C5 Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use District at its June 29 meeting.

Building Commissioner Franklin Wilkinson presented the advertised rezonings during a public hearing that listed parcel numbers and voting-district locations. The body approved the following rezoning motions by roll-call votes: Tanner Owen (E1 to R2; Map 34, Parcel 74.00), Bruce and Stephanie Myers (C5 to C1; Map 23, Parcel 075.00), Charles and Beth Collins (Agriculture to R1 for Map 34, Parcels 5.00 and 5.02), K & S Ventures, LLC. (C5 to C1 for a 1.06-acre portion of Map 26, Parcel 014.00) and James Laberge (E1 to R1; Map 98, Parcel 157). Most motions passed unanimously; the K & S Ventures motion passed 11–1.

Separately, the Capital Improvements Committee’s recommendation on a revised zoning resolution (which would change minimum lot widths and sizes in C5) initially failed on a tie vote. Commissioners then accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation and voted to amend it by adding a requirement that future residential developments in the C5 district include 25% commercial development. The amended recommendation was approved and returned to the Planning Commission for further review and implementation guidance.

The minutes record the parcel identifiers, voting-district locations, and that none of the properties were within a Special Flood Hazard Area. The board scheduled follow-up review through the Planning Commission as required by county zoning procedures.