Residents challenge plan adoption; board pulls resolution 2045 for further legal review

A heated exchange over how to adopt the city's comprehensive plan dominated public comment at the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting on May 11. Residents and volunteer committee members urged the board not to convert the recently completed plan from an ordinance into a resolution, arguing that doing so would remove legal protections for neighborhoods. After extended debate and a legal briefing from the city attorney, the board voted 7'to'0 to remove Resolution 2045 from the agenda and pursue the proper reading and notice process.

The most pointed criticisms came from Danny Barry, a local resident who told the board the resolution "was built on a deliberate misrepresentation of state and local law." Barry cited Tennessee Code Annotated language and argued the statute requires municipal legislative bodies to adopt a comprehensive plan by ordinance, not by resolution. He asked the board to table the item, obtain an independent legal opinion, and hold proper public hearings before any repeal or re-adoption.

City attorney Sue Wilson told the board that the statutory language is permissive and that municipalities commonly adopt comprehensive plans by resolution. She said the change in legislative vehicle (ordinance versus resolution) would not alter the plan's text and emphasized that comprehensive plans are advisory—designed to guide future zoning and policy decisions rather than to operate as binding zoning regulations. Wilson acknowledged the agenda error that omitted the required second reading for repealing the prior ordinance and supported removing the item so staff could correct the procedure.

Mayor Lynn Surn moved to remove Resolution 2045 from the agenda; the motion passed unanimously after members debated Robert's Rules of Order and recognized the city attorney to speak. The board did not vote on any repeal or re-adoption of the plan tonight.

Why this matters: Residents and the volunteer committee that produced the plan said the distinction between ordinance and resolution affects the public's guaranteed opportunity for notice and two readings required for ordinances. They said adopting the plan by resolution could reduce formal safeguards and limit opportunities for public challenge when future development proposals conflict with the plan.

Next steps: The board removed the resolution from tonight's agenda. Members directed staff to correct the procedural oversight, provide required notice, and return the item in the proper form for full consideration at a future meeting.