Board votes 4–3 to repeal recently adopted comprehensive plan ordinance amid legal debate

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted 4–3 on July 13 to repeal the ordinance form of the city’s newly adopted 2045 comprehensive plan on the first of two readings, setting up a follow-up vote in which the board may decide whether to re-adopt the plan as a resolution.

City Attorney (speaker 11) told the board the legal distinction between an ordinance and a resolution is significant: ordinances are binding while resolutions generally serve as advisory guidance. He said many municipalities have shifted to resolution-format comprehensive plans to preserve flexibility.

Opponents of the repeal, including Alderman Wilson (speaker 8), argued the municipal code and Tennessee statutes anticipate municipalities adopting comprehensive plans by ordinance and that keeping the plan as an ordinance gives the city more legal standing when zoning decisions are challenged. “This plan was worked on for years, it was adopted as an ordinance, and reducing it to a resolution makes it far weaker in a courtroom,” Alderman Wilson said, citing Tennessee Code sections discussed during the meeting.

Chuck Dean (speaker 2), who spoke at the public hearing, urged the board to maintain the plan as an ordinance, saying the process involved years of community input and professional work and that an ordinance holds city government accountable. “Please do what is proper for the city of Tullahoma and maintain this as an ordinance,” Dean said.

Proponents of switching to a resolution argued that the comprehensive plan is meant to be flexible guidance and that adopting it as a resolution reduces the risk of developers claiming the plan is strictly binding. City Attorney (speaker 11) echoed that view, saying a resolution can avoid tying the board’s hands while still informing future land-use decisions.

Following roughly two hours of debate, the motion to repeal the ordinance on the first of two readings carried 4–3. The vote means the board repealed the ordinance form at first reading; any subsequent readoption as a resolution or re-adoption as an ordinance will depend on future board action.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan sets the city’s long-range land-use direction; the format (ordinance vs. resolution) affects how strongly that plan can be relied on in later zoning and permitting disputes. Supporters of the ordinance said it provides citizens and investors stability; supporters of a resolution said it preserves flexibility for future decisions.

Next steps: This action was the first of two readings on the repeal. The board may consider an amended approach (including re-adoption as a resolution) at upcoming meetings and has asked city attorneys to provide options and any applicable precedents.