Cheatham County commission passes resolution opposing expansion of commercial development in rural areas after large public turnout

The Cheatham County Commission on April 20 adopted a resolution expressing opposition to expanding commercial development into rural areas, following an extended public forum in which dozens of residents urged commissioners to halt consideration of a proposed rural-resort zoning amendment tied to a property often called Bells Reserve.

The resolution, described by commissioners as a policy statement rather than a change to the text of the zoning code, passed by roll call 10 yes, 2 no. The vote followed a motion to end debate that commissioners approved before taking the final vote.

Why it matters: Residents who live near the Narrows of the Harpeth State Park and Kingston Springs told the commission that the proposal would violate the county’s growth plan, increase traffic on narrow rural roads, worsen stormwater and flooding problems, and threaten cultural and environmental resources near the river. Petitioners said more than 3,500 verified signatures oppose the countywide zoning amendment.

Public testimony was emphatic and sustained. JC Whitaker, who said the petition included more than 3,500 verified signatures with 67% from Cheatham residents, told the commission: “This is the voice of the people you were elected to represent.” Austin Blythe, who identified himself as a nonresident, presented archaeological and parcel details he said tie burial mounds and petroglyphs to the proposed site.

Commission debate centered on two questions: whether the planning commission’s recent action to discontinue discussion meant the item should not be revived, and whether the resolution before the commission would in fact alter zoning text or merely state the body’s policy. County Attorney (speaker 13) advised that the resolution did not change the zoning resolution’s text; commissioners described it as a policy reassurance and a way to back the planning commission and reflect constituent sentiment.

A few speakers urged a different view. Roger Hammeter argued the county needs revenue and said opponents should offer alternatives, noting future obligations such as jail bond payments. Commissioners acknowledged the county’s fiscal pressures while weighing the growth-plan and public-opinion arguments.

What the resolution does: The adopted language states the commission does not want or need changes to the use of rural land that would expand commercial development (whether called high, medium or low density) and affirms the county’s growth plan as a guiding document. County staff and the attorney said the resolution is a policy statement and does not, by itself, amend zoning text or lot-size rules.

Next steps: Commissioners said the resolution provides a statement of policy to reference if similar proposals reappear. Several speakers requested that the planning and commission processes be respected and that any future proposals come through the planning commission for study before being forwarded for a vote.

The meeting record shows the motion to approve the resolution was made on the floor, followed by a second and a roll-call vote recorded as 10 yes and 2 no. The commission moved on to other agenda items after adopting the resolution.