Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents raise zoning complaints; Cheatham County votes to ask attorney to sue Hope Center Ministries

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

After multiple property owners said Hope Center Ministries was not complying with county rules, the Cheatham County Legislative Body voted unanimously to request the county attorney file suit to enforce the Cheatham County Zoning Resolution.

At the Sept. 16 meeting of the Cheatham County Legislative Body in Ashland City, four property owners told commissioners they believed Hope Center Ministries was not complying with county requirements and urged enforcement. The speakers — Tracie Mayberry (property owner, Spring Creek Road), Carmen Irizarry-Zellmann (property owner, Poplar Ridge Lane), Renea Koenig (property owner, Spring Creek Road) and Ashlie Farmer (property owner, Poplar Ridge Road) — made their remarks during the public forum, which opened at 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Walter Weakley pressed the point, asking why the ministry “is being allowed to violate state law,” and discussed enforcement options with Building and Codes Director Franklin Wilkinson. Following the public comments, Weakley moved that the county attorney be requested to file suit to enforce the Cheatham County Zoning Resolution against Hope Center Ministries. Commissioner Bill Powers seconded the motion.

The motion carried on a roll-call vote, 11-0. The vote directed the county attorney to pursue legal action; the minutes record the motion as a formal request to file suit under the county zoning resolution but do not describe any additional factual findings or a timeline for filing.

The action follows multiple residents’ public complaints at the meeting but does not itself adjudicate compliance. The commission’s directive asks the county attorney to evaluate and, if appropriate, commence enforcement litigation. No court filings or further administrative findings were reported at the meeting. The county attorney and building department were present to receive the direction; the minutes do not record a verbatim response from the county attorney on next steps.

The commission took no other formal enforcement vote at the meeting; the motion approved the referral to the county attorney. The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.