Hickman County TN

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Planning Commission · Meeting · Jul 1, 2025

Tue, Jul 1, 2025

Reviews land-use requests, subdivision plats, and long-range growth plans for unincorporated areas of Hickman County.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Join the Substack

Outline

This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.

The meeting was dominated by the draft county land use / transportation plan and especially the proposed 5-acre agricultural-preservation concept across much of the county. Public comment was sharply divided: many speakers argued a 5-acre minimum would price out young families, prevent parents from deeding off small tracts to children, reduce tax base growth, and overreach on private property rights; others supported stronger agricultural preservation, especially if paired with family exemptions. The planning commission emphasized that the draft land use plan is a vision document, not zoning law, and that any actual zoning changes would require separate action, additional hearings, and county commission approval.

Other substantive business included approval of a Silicon Ranch final site plan, two Dylan Jenkins rezoning requests from A1 to R1 to pursue multi-unit housing projects near Highway 100 / Bon Aqua, discussion with the Town of Centerville about coordinating county and city growth policies inside the urban growth boundary, and approval of a zoning-resolution amendment removing fixed vehicle-weight language from home-occupation rules so the BZA can judge road suitability case by case.

Call to Order / Approval of Minutes and Agenda 19:49

  • 19:49 Planning commission called to order.
  • 19:55 Roll call established a quorum.
  • 20:24 Minutes from the June 3 meeting were approved on motion and second without noted opposition.
  • 21:01 Agenda amended to move public comment until after old business so attendees could first hear the consultant presentation on the land use plan.
  • 21:32 Amended agenda approved.

Unfinished Business 21:50

Draft land use / transportation plan presentation by Gresham Smith 21:57

  • 22:27 The chair said the county is revisiting its growth / land use planning on roughly a 20-year cycle and stressed that the draft plan is not itself zoning law.

  • 23:07 The commission distinguished between:

    • the draft land use plan as a vision / guidance document, and
    • the county zoning resolution (“green book”) as the actual governing law for rezonings, setbacks, and subdivision rules.

  • 23:53 The chair said there would be no vote that night on broad zoning-law changes tied to agriculture or residential lot sizes.

  • 25:10 Gresham Smith said it was hired early last year to help update the county’s older growth plan from the 2000s.

  • 26:21 The consultant said the first public-engagement round focused on broad priorities rather than parcel-level land use.

  • 26:45 Guiding principles identified from outreach included:

    • protecting natural resources,
    • maintaining community character,
    • preserving viable agriculture and rural character,
    • expanding infrastructure where needed,
    • increasing housing options,
    • supporting economic development.

  • 27:59 The second engagement round tested land-use scenarios: a trend scenario, a compact / preservation-focused scenario, and a broader growth scenario.

  • 28:27 The consultant said the compact scenario was the most preferred, with about 80% favorable response versus about 60% for another scenario.

  • 29:31 The online engagement tool drew about 435 responses.

  • 30:02 The consultant described the draft preferred map as keeping Hickman County primarily rural and agricultural, with most higher-intensity growth directed toward areas with existing utilities, especially from Centerville toward the northeast / Bon Aqua corridor.

  • 30:41 Draft place types and densities described included:

    • agricultural preservation at 1 unit per 5 acres,
    • rural places at 1 unit per acre,
    • more compact residential growth in utility-served areas at around 1 acre or 1/2 acre lots,
    • commercial growth along existing corridors,
    • limited industrial growth areas,
    • rural crossroads nodes for small-scale stores / services and somewhat denser housing.

  • 32:39 The consultant stressed that the map is only one component of the plan; the full document also includes goals, place types, policy recommendations, and implementation guidance.

  • 33:30 The zoning crosswalk and suggested ordinance changes were described as recommendations only, not automatic law.

  • 34:06 Consultant team asked for comments and said a further edit round would follow.

Planning commission discussion of the draft 34:41

  • 35:04 A commissioner asked how the “planned growth area” would be defined and integrated into the plan.
  • 35:21 The consultant said the plan needs another edit to draw and label that polygon more clearly, especially along Highway 100 toward Bon Aqua.
  • 36:15 A commissioner asked how the acreage recommendations were chosen.
  • 36:25 The consultant said 1 unit per 5 acres is a common agricultural-preservation benchmark, citing Williamson County as an example, though acknowledging Hickman County is different.
  • 37:59 A commissioner noted that the agricultural / forestry area covers roughly 88% of the county and questioned whether applying the 5-acre concept that broadly was appropriate.
  • 38:32 A commissioner said the 5-acre recommendation appeared to be the biggest public concern and suggested the draft may need a lower acreage threshold.
  • 39:10 The consultant responded that rural agricultural densities vary widely and the county could reduce the 5-acre figure while still remaining within a rural / agricultural pattern.
  • 40:18 Discussion emphasized that infrastructure availability, especially water and sewer, would naturally limit large-scale development in the southwest county regardless of map language.
  • 41:08 A commissioner asked whether the urban growth boundary shown near Centerville came from the city or from the consultant’s analysis.
  • 41:47 The consultant said the depicted urban growth concept was drafted during this planning process and had not yet been provided by or approved by the City of Centerville.
  • 42:21 Commissioners clarified that some boundary concepts on the map were consultant-generated recommendations rather than city-adopted lines.
  • 44:33 The commission recessed for about 7 minutes before public comment.

Public Comments 54:25

Public comment process 54:25

  • 54:33 The chair said 16 people had signed up to speak and set a speaking limit of about 4 to 5 minutes each.
  • 55:21 Speakers were directed to address the planning commission from the rail.

Concerns about sprawl, roads, and infrastructure 55:48

  • 55:48 A speaker argued the draft map showed too much light-green / yellow growth area and read as a roadmap for urban sprawl rather than rural preservation.
  • 56:23 The speaker said county roads already fail to support more traffic, citing narrow roads and Highway 100 lacking turn lanes.
  • 57:46 The speaker said the county had only about 3% growth over the last decade and questioned why the map anticipated substantially more.
  • 58:25 The speaker urged more of the map to remain under 5-acre preservation if the county truly wants to prevent irreversible lot fragmentation.
  • 59:18 The speaker asked whether the zoning resolution and latest draft plan would be posted online; the chair said yes, including updated drafts as edits occur.

Support for preserving the west side while allowing denser east-side growth 1:00:34

  • 1:00:34 A speaker from the Brushy area said the county should distinguish between east-side areas that want more development and west-side agricultural areas that want to remain largely unchanged.
  • 1:01:27 The speaker warned against approving growth before roads, power, water, and sewer are ready, citing Franklin as an example of infrastructure lagging development.
  • 1:02:22 The speaker supported agricultural preservation with room for family-related exceptions where parents want children to live nearby.

Criticism of survey size and argument for business-led tax base growth 1:02:52

  • 1:03:30 A speaker challenged reliance on 435 survey responses in a county of roughly 27,000 residents, saying the sample was too small and hard to find online.
  • 1:04:16 The speaker argued roads and infrastructure should come first and said the county needs business growth, not just housing, to fund improvements.
  • 1:05:18 The speaker claimed a new industrial / electrical motor facility could generate tax revenue comparable to 5,000 houses.
  • 1:05:43 The speaker asked what the planning contract cost; no exact number was provided at the meeting, though one attendee asserted $175,000.
  • 1:06:50 The speaker cited housing affordability concerns:
    • new homes listed around $399,000,
    • selling around $271,000–$325,000,
    • median household income around $57,000,
    • estimated income needed to buy a new home around $75,000–$95,000.
  • 1:07:17 The speaker said the plan’s goal of increasing housing options for young families was not being met by current market realities.

Opposition to 5-acre minimum as barrier to family land transfers 1:07:50

  • 1:07:50 A lifelong resident opposed the 5-acre concept and said 1-acre homesites can still be attractive and rural.
  • 1:08:30 The speaker argued families often need to deed off 1 or 2 acres to help children get started and that a 5-acre rule would block that path.
  • 1:10:25 The speaker said requiring 5 acres would push younger residents out of Hickman County and make inherited family land less useful.

Young-family affordability concerns 1:11:57

  • 1:11:57 Another speaker said being deeded 1 acre by family had made homeownership possible and warned that a 5-acre rule would shut off that option for many younger residents.
  • 1:12:43 The speaker said an average home around $275,000 would require roughly $90,000 income to afford, even before other debts.
  • 1:13:11 The speaker said applying the 5-acre concept to over 80% of the county would heavily affect local families’ plans for children to build nearby.
  • 1:14:34 The speaker also questioned why productive agricultural areas such as Little Lot, Pinewood, and Toddy’s Bend appeared in lower-density growth colors rather than stronger preservation categories.

Support for 5-acre preservation with family carve-out 1:15:21

  • 1:15:21 A Pinewood landowner said her family owns 300-plus acres of agricultural / forestry land and wants to remain under A1 agricultural zoning.
  • 1:15:30 She supported a 5-acre minimum if there is a stipulation allowing smaller tracts to be deeded to family members.
  • 1:15:38 She asked the commission to protect farmland and waterways.

Builder / developer perspective against 5-acre minimum and sewer restrictions 1:15:52

  • 1:15:52 A former county commissioner / builder said he works with more than 200 families and sees severe housing inventory shortages.
  • 1:16:43 He argued that some officials support a 5-acre minimum while also resisting sewer expansion that would allow growth where it makes more sense.
  • 1:17:14 He said current rules already allow homes on 1 acre with a TDEC-approved perk site outside growth areas, and smaller lots in some zoned growth areas.
  • 1:17:39 He warned that if sewer remains unavailable, the practical growth zone shrinks.
  • 1:18:00 He said telling families in places like Coble, Pinewood, Wrigley, Little Lot, or Shady Grove they cannot split off 1 acre for a parent or child is unreasonable.
  • 1:18:33 He referenced a reported county deficit around $10 million and argued the county needs both business development and affordable rooftops.

Questions about plan cost, property rights, and whether the plan leads to law 1:19:29

  • 1:19:50 A landowner wanting to reserve part of roughly 6 acres for a child asked how a possible 5-acre rule would affect that plan.

  • 1:22:47 The chair responded that nothing changes until formal votes occur and encouraged continued attendance at meetings.

  • 1:23:25 A real estate agent / investor asked again about the cost of the plan after hearing a figure of $175,000 mentioned from the audience; no official figure was given during the meeting.

  • 1:25:32 He argued that agricultural preservation should not prevent families from cutting off an acre for children or helpers.

  • 1:27:47 He said although the land use plan is not itself law, it is the recommendation that would later inform zoning-law changes, so property owners are right to be concerned.

Tax-base and appraisal argument against 5-acre minimum 1:28:20

  • 1:28:47 A speaker drawing on property-assessment experience said Tennessee values land under 15 acres on a per-unit basis.
  • 1:29:04 Using a Highway 50 example, she said the first acre might appraise at $25,000.
  • 1:29:24 She said taxes on a bare 1-acre tract valued at $25,000 would be about $161 using the 2024 rate.
  • 1:29:40 She said a 5-acre tract might appraise at $53,150 total and generate about $342 in taxes.
  • 1:29:59 By contrast, five separate 1-acre tracts would generate about $805 in taxes, a difference of $463.
  • 1:30:25 She argued there is a 1:7 to 1:10 relationship between land cost and the house price a buyer can afford, so forcing larger lots lowers the home value that can be financed.
  • 1:31:42 She also argued many landowners treat land as retirement security and that a 5-acre rule would reduce flexibility and value for older owners.

Preservation concerns with possible family exemption 1:32:56

  • 1:32:56 A Pinewood resident said the main concern is avoiding a subdivision “in my front yard.”
  • 1:33:16 He said he could support some amendment allowing families to carve out smaller tracts for children or grandchildren.

Defense of the draft map and skepticism of “affordable housing” claims 1:33:56

  • 1:34:14 A speaker said new houses in his neighborhood sold for no less than $330,000, undercutting claims that more development would necessarily mean affordability.
  • 1:34:31 He noted that fewer people were present in the room than the 400-plus surveyed online, suggesting the survey should not be dismissed outright.
  • 1:35:14 He criticized wastewater expansion proposals tied to the White Bluff / Dickson area, arguing they would serve high-end development rather than local affordable housing.
  • 1:36:11 He described Hickman County as unusually water-rich and worth protecting.
  • 1:36:34 He said he personally bought a home for around $250,000 while earning well under $90,000, and saw multiple homes for sale along Highway 100, disputing claims of total housing unavailability.
  • 1:37:32 He asked about conservation easements in the plan; the consultant said conservation areas shown were largely based on already-preserved land and that easements could be one possible tool, though not detailed in the draft.

Water / aquifer concerns tied to east-side growth and sewer expansion 1:38:37

  • 1:38:55 A speaker said the biggest concern was overlap between the proposed growth pattern and the Dickson water / sewer service area on the east side.
  • 1:39:10 The speaker warned that more dense development could threaten wells, aquifers, creeks, and downstream water quality all the way to the Duck River.
  • 1:40:09 The speaker said residents in that area do not want city water and sewer and fear the environmental tradeoffs.

Working-family economics against 5-acre minimum 1:41:07

  • 1:41:14 A speaker said he has children and grandchildren and does not support the 5-acre concept because it would make even mobile-home placement harder.
  • 1:41:38 He noted that single-wide homes are already restricted and said financing land plus a double-wide or house is unrealistic for many workers.
  • 1:42:04 He used an example of a worker making $21 an hour and a spouse making around $10–$13 an hour, arguing that after taxes, transportation, insurance, and living costs, a 5-acre homesite is not feasible.
  • 1:44:25 He suggested the county should target restrictions at developers through permits rather than broadly limiting ordinary residents.

Additional opposition and call for referendum 1:45:10

  • 1:45:11 Another speaker said he opposed the 5-acre idea and would prefer 1-acre lots along county roads, reserving larger minimums only for deep timber areas rather than road-front family land.
  • 1:46:37 A final speaker said a land use plan is reasonable but questioned why acreage restrictions had to be attached to it.
  • 1:47:20 He argued that if citizens want such restrictions, the county should hold a special election or referendum rather than leaving the issue to the planning commission and county commission alone.

Chair’s clarification after public comment 1:48:39

  • 1:48:49 The chair reiterated that any zoning change would come out of the planning commission, receive two public hearings, and then go to the 14-member county commission for final action.
  • 1:49:21 He said the county had recently changed its process from one public hearing to two before county commission action on zoning changes.
  • 1:50:09 He acknowledged the 5-acre issue was the dominant concern and said staff had already begun looking at how other counties handle family exceptions, including:
    • allowing a reduction to 1 acre for family,
    • requiring the tract to stay in the family for 10 years,
    • or allowing “compound”-style family arrangements.
  • 1:52:16 He said the latest draft would be posted online and the land use plan would remain on next month’s agenda for continued discussion.

New Business / Agenda Items 2:04:08

Silicon Ranch final site plan approval, North Lick Creek 2:04:12

  • 2:04:12 Staff presented a final site plan for Silicon Ranch property on North Lick Creek in Lyles.
  • 2:04:38 Staff said the applicant had now provided the stormwater pollution prevention permit from TDEC.
  • 2:04:53 Staff said no changes had been made to the site plan since the prior month and recommended approval.
  • 2:05:09 Motion made and seconded to approve.
  • 2:05:33 Roll-call vote approved the site plan unanimously among members present, effectively 11–0.
  • 2:06:15 The chair explained for the audience that subdivision / site-plan approvals are routine planning-commission business when applications satisfy the zoning resolution and technical review requirements.

Rezoning request: Dylan Jenkins, A1 to R1, McFarland Road / Highway 100 area 2:07:05

  • 2:07:25 The chair announced that newly hired Planning and Zoning Director Austin Brown had started on July 1 and would take a larger role in future meetings.
  • 2:08:00 Staff presented Dylan Jenkins’s request to rezone property from A1 to R1 on McFarland Road, in the planned growth area.
  • 2:08:31 Discussion clarified the tract is effectively on Highway 100 near Prim Springs Road, with confusing or outdated address / road-label information.
  • 2:10:24 The applicant said the goal was not to split the tract into lots but to pursue a quadruplex, and he had been told R1 zoning was needed before seeking the next approval step.
  • 2:11:00 Discussion noted an existing trailer and septic system on the site; the applicant said the trailer would be removed and hoped additional septic capacity could support more units.
  • 2:13:42 A commissioner reminded the applicant that a quadruplex would still require a special exception from the BZA even if rezoning is approved.
  • 2:14:19 Motion made and seconded to approve the rezoning recommendation.
  • 2:14:30 Roll-call vote approved the request unanimously, 11–0, to move forward to county commission.

Rezoning request: Dylan Jenkins, A1 to R1, Bond Lane / Prim Springs area 2:15:03

  • 2:15:10 Staff presented a second Dylan Jenkins request to rezone another tract from A1 to R1, this one on Bond Lane in the same general area.
  • 2:15:24 The applicant said this tract is about 1 acre and he again wants multi-unit housing if septic approvals allow, not lot splitting.
  • 2:16:18 Discussion suggested the tract may be slightly under 1 acre and is accessed by a narrow dirt road / right-of-way.
  • 2:17:18 Commissioners raised concern about using R1 zoning on a road with only about 16 feet of right-of-way.
  • 2:18:16 The applicant acknowledged he would still need BZA approval after any rezoning.
  • 2:18:34 The chair explained the timeline:
    • planning commission recommendation now,
    • county commission public comment at the end of July,
    • county commission vote in late August,
    • then possible BZA review in early September if approved.
  • 2:20:20 Commissioners noted that because of publication deadlines and the late timing of planning meetings, some rezonings may take three months rather than two to complete.
  • 2:22:53 One commissioner said the proposed use would likely be better than some surrounding properties, though another remained uneasy about R1 on a 16-foot right-of-way.
  • 2:23:29 Motion made and seconded to approve.
  • 2:23:46 Roll-call vote approved the rezoning recommendation unanimously, 11–0.

Town of Centerville planning comments on urban growth boundary coordination 2:24:23

  • 2:24:35 Town planning representative Ashley Peterson (formerly Blasdel/Blasted in transcript) addressed the commission.
  • 2:25:18 She said the county’s new land use plan does not itself change growth boundaries; changing those would require reconvening the coordinating committees.
  • 2:25:43 She said Centerville’s current land use policy dates from 2006 and the county’s from 2008.
  • 2:26:13 She noted the county’s current plan references Centerville’s planning area and city development expectations, but the new draft does not yet adequately carry that coordination forward.
  • 2:26:47 She said what the county calls relatively high density—around 1 unit per acre or less—is still low density for the city, creating future annexation and infrastructure conflicts.
  • 2:27:36 She asked the county to consider creating zoning districts unique to the urban growth boundary, potentially allowing lots around 10,000 square feet where sewer service is intended.
  • 2:28:31 She said Centerville expects to update its own plan within 1 to 2 years, likely using grants, and wants the county to leave room for coordinated city-led planning in the urban growth boundary.
  • 2:29:37 She warned that Centerville cannot adopt the county’s plan as written if the urban growth boundary is mapped for 1-acre development patterns that conflict with city sewer and annexation goals.
  • 2:31:26 In response to questions, she said:
    • subdivision review inside the urban growth boundary belongs to the Centerville Municipal Regional Planning Commission,
    • zoning changes there should first come through the city planning commission,
    • but final zoning approval still goes to the county legislative body because the land remains outside city limits.
  • 2:32:30 She said county minimum lot standards currently control subdivision design in that area, which is the source of conflict.
  • 2:33:27 The chair acknowledged that in the past, rezonings in the urban growth boundary had often come directly to the county rather than through the city first, even though that was not the proper procedure.
  • 2:34:13 Peterson said the sewer moratorium may eventually be lifted, though she would not give a timeline, and argued the county should avoid approving 1-acre sewerless subdivisions in areas intended for future city sewer service.
  • 2:35:29 Discussion explored creating a unique district—such as an “urban” district—specific to the urban growth boundary rather than reusing county R1/R2 labels with different meanings.
  • 2:37:04 Peterson suggested the city could do the legwork on drafting those district standards when it updates its own plan, then bring them to the county for adoption.
  • 2:38:24 She said the city hopes to work the issue into the next budget cycle, though elections and a new mayor could affect timing.
  • 2:38:52 The consultant recommended that Peterson, Austin Brown, and Gresham Smith confer before the next meeting and return with a proposed resolution.
  • 2:44:43 Speaking as a citizen as well as a planner, Peterson noted the county’s older plan included a family-subdivision exemption and suggested commissioners review that as a possible answer to the 5-acre controversy.

Resolution 25-23: home occupations / vehicle-weight language 2:45:12

  • 2:45:22 The chair introduced Resolution 25-23, dealing with home occupations and vehicle-use standards.
  • 2:46:01 A commissioner explained that earlier changes had tried to broaden opportunities for home-occupation businesses in A1 areas.
  • 2:46:24 The problem discovered afterward was that fixed gross-vehicle-weight language unintentionally excluded some otherwise reasonable applications.
  • 2:46:47 The amendment removes specific gross-vehicle-weight references and instead lets the BZA determine whether access roads are of sufficient classification, construction, and right-of-way for the proposed use.
  • 2:47:03 The commissioner illustrated the issue with New Hope Road:
    • north of Highway 100: a 50-foot Class A asphalt road that could handle more traffic,
    • south of Highway 100: a dirt road with only 16 feet of right-of-way that likely could not.
  • 2:48:20 The argument for the amendment was that road suitability depends on local conditions, not just a single weight number.
  • 2:48:48 Motion made and seconded to approve Resolution 25-23.
  • 2:49:03 Roll-call vote approved the resolution unanimously, 11–0, to move on to county commission.

Department / Official Reports 2:49:47

Chairperson / staff / director reports 2:49:47

  • 2:49:54 The chair asked staff to ensure Resolution 25-23 is placed on the July county commission agenda for first reading / hearing.
  • 2:50:30 He asked that the latest draft of the land use plan be posted to the website.
  • 2:50:43 He said the appendix was not ready for posting and would first be revised by the new planning director and Gresham Smith to fix gaps / issues.
  • 2:51:23 The chair welcomed new Planning and Zoning Director Austin Brown on his first day.
  • 2:51:34 Staff and the new director reported no additional items.

Adjournment 2:51:56

  • 2:51:56 Motion and second to adjourn.
  • 2:52:04 Meeting adjourned.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
20 years Time period Typical update cycle discussed for county growth / land use planning 22:27
80% Percentage Approximate support for the compact / preservation-focused scenario 28:27
60% Percentage Approximate support for another scenario, used for comparison 28:36
435 Responses Online engagement / survey responses 29:31
1 unit per 5 acres Density Draft agricultural preservation place type 30:41
1 unit per acre Density Draft rural places density 30:49
1 acre Lot size Draft residential growth density in some areas 31:04
1/2 acre Lot size Draft residential growth density in some areas 31:04
88% Percentage Share of county said to fall in agricultural / forestry area 37:59
7 minutes Recess length Break before public comment 44:33
16 Speakers Number signed up for public comment 54:33
4 to 5 minutes Time limit Public comment speaking time 54:50
3% Percentage Growth over the last decade cited by a speaker 57:46
27,000 Population Approximate county population cited in criticism of survey size 1:03:30
18,000 Population estimate Approximate adult population cited by speaker 1:03:40
5,000 houses Tax-base comparison Claimed equivalent tax impact of a new industrial facility 1:05:18
$175,000 Claimed cost Audience-stated estimate of planning contract cost; not confirmed at meeting 1:24:44
$399,000 Listing price New median house price cited by speaker 1:06:50
$271,000–$325,000 Sale price range New-home sale range cited by speaker 1:06:50
$57,000 Income Median household income cited by speaker 1:07:04
$75,000–$95,000 Income range Estimated income needed to buy a new home 1:07:09
1966 Year Lifelong resident’s birth year, used to emphasize local perspective 1:07:50
1 acre Lot size Common family homesite size defended by multiple speakers 1:08:04
2 acres Lot size Example of tract parents might deed to children 1:09:14
20% Down payment Down payment burden cited in affordability argument 1:10:07
17 years Time period How long one speaker had owned land / planned for children 1:12:56
80% Percentage Share of county said to be affected by 5-acre concept 1:13:11
300-plus acres Acreage Pinewood family agricultural / forestry holdings 1:15:21
200-plus families Count Families a builder said he represents / serves 1:16:28
5 acres Acreage Builder’s adjacent tract with sewer he said he cannot develop 1:16:50
$10 million Deficit Approximate county deficit cited by speakers 1:18:33
6 acres Acreage Speaker’s tract she hoped to split for family 1:19:50
9.8 million Deficit More specific deficit figure cited from newspaper 1:24:07
25,000 to 26,000 Population change Claimed county population growth over roughly 20 years 1:26:35
15 acres Acreage threshold State assessment treatment for land under this size 1:28:47
$25,000 Appraisal Example value for first acre on Highway 50 1:28:56
2024 Year Tax rate year used in appraisal example 1:29:12
$161 Tax amount Taxes on one bare acre valued at $25,000 1:29:24
5 acres Acreage Comparison tract in tax-base example 1:29:40
$53,150 Appraisal Example total appraisal for 5-acre tract 1:29:40
$342 Tax amount Taxes on 5-acre tract in example 1:29:49
$805 Tax amount Combined taxes on five separate 1-acre tracts 1:29:59
$463 Tax difference Difference between five 1-acre tracts and one 5-acre tract 1:30:08
1:7 to 1:10 Ratio Claimed land-cost to house-price affordability ratio 1:30:25
$330,000 Sale price Lowest recent new-home sale in one speaker’s neighborhood 1:34:14
$250,000 Home price Approximate price one speaker paid for a home 1:36:34
$90,000 Income Income level one speaker said he was under when buying home 1:36:34
2 Hearings Number of public hearings now required for zoning changes 1:49:21
14 Commissioners County commission members who ultimately vote on zoning changes 1:49:37
1 acre Family exception size Example smaller tract some counties allow within 5-acre systems 1:50:09
10 years Restriction period Example family-hold requirement in other counties 1:50:17
July 1 Start date First day for new Planning and Zoning Director Austin Brown 2:07:25
A1 to R1 Zoning change Dylan Jenkins rezoning request, first tract 2:08:00
quadruplex Unit type Intended project on first Dylan Jenkins tract 2:10:24
2-bedroom Septic capacity Existing trailer septic described on first tract 2:11:00
11–0 Vote Silicon Ranch final site plan approval 2:06:06
11–0 Vote Dylan Jenkins McFarland / Highway 100 rezoning recommendation 2:15:03
1 acre Acreage Approximate size of second Dylan Jenkins tract 2:15:24
0.95 acre Acreage Approximate size suggested for second tract 2:16:18
16 feet Right-of-way width Narrow access concern on second Dylan Jenkins tract 2:17:18
11–0 Vote Dylan Jenkins Bond Lane rezoning recommendation 2:24:16
2006 Year Centerville land use policy date 2:25:43
2008 Year County land use policy date 2:25:43
1 unit per acre or less Density County draft density inside urban growth boundary criticized by city planner 2:26:47
10,000 square feet Lot size Example city-scale lot size proposed for urban growth boundary coordination 2:27:52
1 to 2 years Time period Centerville timeline to update its own plan 2:28:31
50-foot Road width New Hope Road north segment example in home-occupation discussion 2:47:10
16 feet Right-of-way width New Hope Road south segment example in home-occupation discussion 2:47:27
11,000 lbs Vehicle weight Approximate gross vehicle weight figure referenced as too rigid 2:48:13
25-23 Resolution number Home-occupation / vehicle-weight amendment 2:45:12
11–0 Vote Resolution 25-23 approval to send to county commission 2:49:28