Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Bells Reserve topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents voice opposition to Bells Reserve development during Cheatham County public forum

Cheatham County Legislative Body · April 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

Dozens of residents spoke during the Feb. 23 public forum in Ashland City, with the majority opposing the proposed Bells Reserve development and a minority urging county representation on utility matters; speakers also urged exploration of rural water grants.

Dozens of residents addressed the Cheatham County Legislative Body during a public forum on Feb. 23, 2026, expressing widespread opposition to the proposed Bells Reserve housing development and raising separate concerns about utility representation and rural water access.

Chairman Tim Williamson opened the forum at 6:03 p.m. Several speakers from the 5th and 6th voting districts, including Jan Meek, Linda Ryder, Lisa Bold, Jaci Whitaker, Jay and Jan Rachels, Jennifer Perigo and Alicia Mayes, stated they oppose the Bells Reserve proposal and urged the commission to weigh community impacts before approving related land‑use decisions. A smaller set of residents — Mike Hargis, James Petre and Bob Sanders — spoke in favor of the project or supported a resolution requesting broader county representation on Nashville Electric Service (NES) matters.

Christy Saunders and Deborah Doyle told commissioners they oppose NES and asked the county to investigate grant opportunities to bring water service to rural roads such as Big Marrowbone Road. Perry Keenan also spoke in favor of an NES resolution that would seek representation for Cheatham County on utility boards.

The public forum closed at 6:47 p.m. The meeting record shows the forum generated both community opposition to a specific development proposal and broader citizen requests regarding utilities and rural infrastructure; those themes later appeared in formal business before the commission.