Hickman County TN

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

Planning Commission · Growth Plan Kickoff · Dec 10, 2024

Tue, Dec 10, 2024

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 special-called Planning Commission meeting served as a working session on the county growth plan rather than a vote-heavy business meeting. The consultant team reported strong public engagement, with feedback clustering around a familiar tension: residents want to preserve Hickman County’s rural character, farmland, and water resources, but many also want more housing choices, small-scale local commerce, and community amenities closer to home. The discussion focused on how to turn that feedback into scenario analysis that compares tradeoffs among rural conservation, continuation of current trends, and more targeted “expanded centers” growth.

Commissioners and attendees pressed on what the plan would actually do: how growth areas would differ by geography, how existing zoning and future infrastructure would interact, whether the plan could effectively limit farm subdivision, and who would bear infrastructure costs. Other notable threads included preservation of natural resources, concern about sewer discharge impacts, the role of utilities and stakeholders in the next phase, and scheduling a late-January stakeholder session to review draft place types and scenarios.

Call to Order 7:03

  • 7:03 Chair called the special-called Planning Commission meeting to order for discussion of the growth plan only.
  • 7:45 Public comment period was opened with a reminder that, because this was a special-called meeting, no unrelated business could be discussed.
  • 8:00 No immediate public speakers were taken before the presentation began.

Roll Call 7:10

  • 7:17 Roll call showed a quorum present.
  • Members named in attendance included Will Mayberry, Jeff Church, Tony Taylor, Tommy Capps, Danny Clark, Eddie Boone, Bill Lane, Jason Carter, Claude Callicott, Keith Nash, and Andy Maddox.

Department / Official Reports

Growth plan consultant presentation: public engagement findings 8:44

  • 8:58 Consultant thanked the county and project participants for helping drive turnout and online participation, saying the county generated unusually strong engagement for a community of its size.
  • 10:45 Public outreach produced 431 recorded responses total, including 293 interactive-map responses and 138 survey responses.
  • 11:33 About 47% of participants were described as long-term residents with more than 20 years in the county; nearly half both lived and worked in Hickman County.
  • 12:05 Residents’ “favorite things” centered on rural community, small-town life, and natural resources.
  • 12:29 Comments about what is “missing” often pointed not to major urbanization, but to practical needs: community facilities, services, local businesses, commerce, sewer, and related infrastructure.
  • 13:23 Mapping exercises on “change” versus “preserve” showed a consistent pattern across workshops and online input.
  • 14:09 Feedback generally accepted more change in areas already experiencing growth, especially Bon Aqua and Lyles, with some support for strategic growth at interchange areas.
  • 14:27 The consultant also identified interest in limited nodal or crossroads-style development, tied to demand for small-scale, locally oriented commerce.
  • 14:53 A “halo analysis” divided the county into roughly 5-acre units to visualize the nearest public-input preferences, reinforcing the same broad geography: growth concentrated around existing growth areas, preservation favored elsewhere.
  • 15:50 A second exercise on preferred “place types” added more detail to where residents wanted different development forms.
  • 16:21 Results suggested more diverse place types in Bon Aqua, more town-center style growth around Centerville, rural residential in the eastern county, rural pastoral across much of the rest, and highway retail near interchange areas.
  • 16:46 When asked which development forms they liked, respondents favored town-center, limited retail hub, rural pastoral, and rural residential patterns.
  • 17:03 Highway-scale commercial drew more skepticism, and suburban-style residential development was especially unpopular.
  • 17:40 An open-ended exercise by community showed a split between places where residents described desired future development and places where they emphasized keeping conditions largely unchanged.
  • 18:14 Bon Aqua, Lyles, and Centerville generated comments oriented toward additional growth opportunities, while Nunnelly, Duck River, and Pleasantville more often drew “nothing,” “farming,” and “rural” responses.
  • 19:03 Consultant said younger participants especially raised concern about housing supply, including options for residents forming new households even without large in-migration.
  • 20:08 Preservation of natural resources was described as a major issue, especially water resources and farmland.
  • 20:24 Another recurring tension was convenience versus rural lifestyle: people accept longer drives as part of rural life, but still want some closer-to-home businesses and services.
  • 21:02 Expanded parks, recreation, and community facilities also came up repeatedly.
  • 21:12 Sewer and water constraints were identified as the underlying practical limit on where future growth at scale could occur.
  • 22:08 A commissioner asked whether larger words in the word clouds reflected more frequent responses; the consultant said yes, while cautioning that word clouds strip out context.

Growth plan consultant presentation: suitability analysis 22:41

  • 22:57 Consultant explained the county now had two main data inputs for the next phase: public preference and physical/market constraints.
  • 23:19 Suitability mapping used a countywide grid rather than parcels so large and small tracts could be compared more evenly.
  • 23:45 The scoring framework evaluated land suitability based on physical constraints and market factors.
  • 23:54 Physical constraints included steep slopes greater than about 15%, floodplains, public lands, and railroad rights-of-way.
  • 24:16 Infrastructure and access inputs included water, sewer, road proximity, and closeness to schools, parks, and other public facilities or services.
  • 24:32 Existing development patterns were also considered, including the assumption that land already in residential use would likely remain residential.
  • 24:47 The analysis also incorporated prime agricultural soils and currently farmed land.
  • 24:55 Resulting maps highlighted darker areas with higher apparent development propensity, generally where infrastructure and existing growth already exist and where topographic or flood constraints are lighter.
  • 25:57 Consultant cautioned against over-reading any single site on the map; the tool is meant as one data point to compare alongside public input.
  • 26:29 In response to a question about why some roadway-adjacent areas scored higher, the consultant said frontage patterns were driven more by flat land, flood avoidance, and road access than by current residential use.
  • 26:47 Existing residential use actually lowered suitability slightly because the planning assumption is that a single-family home generally stays a single-family home rather than becoming commercial or multifamily.

Growth plan consultant presentation: scenario analysis framework 27:52

  • 28:01 Consultant shifted to the next project phase: scenario analysis, meant to compare tradeoffs rather than pick a single ready-made option.
  • 28:17 He said scenarios are intentionally exaggerated versions of reality, used to force discussion of tradeoffs rather than present a simple “pick A, B, or C” choice.
  • 28:42 The team expects to bring stakeholders back in early next year with draft place types and sketch scenarios to test whether important factors are missing.
  • 29:16 Consultant framed the core tradeoffs as preservation versus change, rural character versus housing, and resource protection versus strategic development.
  • 29:50 Three preliminary scenario concepts were presented for reaction:
    • 29:57 Rural conservation: largely keep the county as it is, limit growth beyond by-right development, preserve open land, avoid breaking up large tracts, and discourage additional corridor development.
    • 30:44 Under that scenario, the county would need to confront consequences such as lower housing capacity, fiscal effects, and possible difficulty accommodating projected residents.
    • 31:08 Trend / business as usual: extend current development trends, with limited infrastructure expansion and continued concentration in existing growth areas, including continued linear corridor development.
    • 31:33 Expanded centers: allow buildout in existing growth areas plus targeted micro-nodes or crossroads/village-style centers with some added commercial and residential intensity.
    • 32:12 This third option would likely require more infrastructure expansion, especially sewer capacity and sewer lines.
  • 32:20 Consultant said each scenario would be evaluated not only visually on maps but also through sketch-level metrics on housing, infrastructure, and similar effects.
  • 33:01 The work would also compare each scenario with current zoning and land-development regulations to identify what changes, if any, would be needed to realize it.

Committee Reports / Discussion 34:00

Commission discussion: zoning, policy control, and implementation 34:00

  • 34:00 A commissioner asked whether the listed scenarios were in rank order or reflected strongest public support; the consultant said no, they were arranged along a general preservation-to-change axis rather than by popularity.
  • 34:59 A commissioner said the county has discussed from the start how to “hold on” to its rural character, and argued that if the county wants to keep farms from being broken up, that likely has to be done through zoning.
  • 35:40 Consultant agreed that even “doing little” is still a policy choice, and said the final phase after scenario testing would be a preferred growth scenario with high-level zoning recommendations for county consideration.
  • 36:13 He clarified that the consultant can recommend zoning updates but cannot make those decisions; the Planning Commission and county would decide.
  • 36:29 A commissioner emphasized that zoning is where the county can actually stop unwanted development proposals if policy and ordinance align.
  • 36:48 Another commissioner pressed for clarity on how “place types” would connect to actual development rules and existing county conditions.
  • 37:27 Consultant said future place types would be based partly on development already present in the county and partly on what current zoning allows, while also leaving room to test forms not currently allowed.
  • 38:07 He added that place types would not be just labels; each would carry indicators such as housing yield, commercial square footage, sewer impact, and likely school impact.
  • 38:45 Those place-type indicators would roll up into scenario-level comparisons so officials could compare consequences rather than just map colors.

Commission discussion: geography, infrastructure reality, and mixed outcomes 39:18

  • 39:18 A commissioner summarized the process as overlaying change/preserve input with suitability and existing zoning to see where they align; the consultant said that was essentially correct for scenario building.
  • 40:03 Consultant said the central question is what balance of tradeoffs the county wants in its preferred future land-use plan.
  • 40:33 A commissioner asked whether the work is limited to current infrastructure or whether it also considers future infrastructure expansion in areas where growth might be wanted.
  • 41:22 Consultant said it has to do both: start from current conditions but project a policy vision for the next 20 years, especially where sewered growth at scale could or could not happen.
  • 42:01 He said the plan can identify where growth would be preferred if sewer expands, giving officials and utilities guidance for future decisions even if exact market conditions are uncertain.
  • 43:12 Consultant asked whether the presented tradeoffs matched what commissioners hear from constituents or whether other tensions should be modeled.
  • 45:18 A commissioner said the most common split in public conversations is still between “leave it like it is” and “we need more growth,” sometimes paired with a softer desire for modest amenities that preserve a hometown feel.
  • 46:54 Another commissioner said the consultant seems to understand the local mood, but asked how the county moves from tone and atmosphere to concrete infrastructure realities such as roads, electricity, water, sewer, and gas.
  • 48:37 Consultant said the next stakeholder round would bring utility providers back in to test whether draft scenarios are realistic or “insane” from an infrastructure standpoint.
  • 48:59 He emphasized that the growth plan is a policy document: it sends signals to residents, developers, and utilities about where the county prefers development, which helps utility systems decide where expansion may eventually make sense.
  • 49:41 Without that policy guidance, he said, utility providers cannot rationally plan 10- or 15-year expansions because they do not know which areas the county actually wants served.
  • 50:05 He described development and infrastructure as a “chicken-and-egg” relationship: infrastructure attracts development, and development pressure can justify infrastructure.
  • 50:44 A commissioner restated that the growth plan itself is the county’s signal of intent, based on real and possible future infrastructure; the consultant agreed.
  • 51:58 A commissioner cautioned that the county is large and not suited to one uniform scenario; different parts may call for expanded centers, trend growth, or rural conservation.
  • 53:25 Consultant said that is exactly why the scenarios are intentionally conflicting: not to force one countywide choice, but to let the county pull elements from different columns into a final preferred map.
  • 54:23 He said the next round will also take those exaggerated options back to the public so residents can react to clearer differences.
  • 55:09 A commissioner said the station maps already suggest a geographic answer: some areas, especially the east end and growth corridors, point toward expanded centers, while places with flood or terrain constraints point strongly toward conservation.
  • 56:44 The same commissioner cited Pleasantville and similarly constrained areas as examples where geography and floodplain realities make large-scale development less plausible.
  • 57:16 He said the policy document should therefore be geographic rather than one-size-fits-all.
  • 57:50 Consultant agreed that all scenarios will still account for geographic differences, and said expanded centers would not simply put high-intensity growth into unsuitable southwestern areas.
  • 58:24 He defended exaggerated scenarios as useful because they provoke reaction and may surface ideas people had not fully considered, including nodal development.
  • 59:07 A commissioner asked whether, if nodal development became part of policy, the county could later use tools such as TIFs or PILOT programs to encourage it.
  • 59:22 Consultant said potentially yes, especially for small-scale local commercial development in underserved areas, and noted tourism-related spillover possibilities.

Public Comments 1:00:07

Shopping leakage and modest growth in Pleasantville / Nunnelly 1:00:28

  • 1:00:28 A resident with property in Nunnelly and Pleasantville said much of her shopping happens outside Hickman County and asked whether the study considers money leaking into neighboring counties.
  • 1:01:02 Consultant said it is difficult to measure exactly how many dollars leave the county, but the team can estimate potential fiscal impact from new commercial development, including likely sales tax receipts.
  • 1:01:26 The resident said she chose to live in Hickman County and does not want heavy growth, but would prefer to spend more money locally if options existed.
  • 1:01:49 She argued that some additional growth in Pleasantville could help both local residents and potentially attract spending from neighboring counties.
  • 1:02:05 Consultant said that concern was common in public engagement and could support actionable recommendations for closer-to-home shopping opportunities, though utilities remain a case-by-case constraint.

Existing growth areas and added detail in the replacement plan 1:02:41

  • 1:02:41 A question was raised about whether the existing growth plan’s designated growth areas would remain in the replacement plan.
  • 1:03:01 Consultant said yes, the team is reviewing those original growth areas, but intends to add more detail rather than rely only on broad circles.
  • 1:03:16 Under the new approach, growth areas would be paired with place-type designations describing what kind of growth is most appropriate in each area.
  • 1:03:40 A commissioner said that would also help signal what infrastructure should be encouraged to support the preferred place type in each area.
  • 1:04:11 He argued that a scenario for Pleasantville could look very different from a scenario for East Hickman / Bon Aqua / Highway 46, and that such differences are appropriate.
  • 1:05:00 Consultant agreed, saying each geography may end up with different growth patterns in the scenarios, and the final plan would effectively “Frankenstein together” the preferred pieces.

Property rights and infrastructure-cost burden 1:05:45

  • 1:05:45 A public question raised concern that a farm owner might read the process as meaning land could never later be sold for housing development.
  • 1:06:17 The same speaker also asked whether the county would know what infrastructure would cost and who would pay for it, warning that even targeted infrastructure can become a burden on the whole county.
  • 1:06:40 Consultant responded that the future land-use plan expresses policy preference for a parcel but does not automatically lock it forever into one use.
  • 1:06:56 If a farm is designated agriculture/open space, that means the county’s policy intent is preservation, but the plan can be revisited in the future if market conditions materially change.
  • 1:07:14 He cautioned that amendments should be made carefully so the plan does not lose credibility or purpose.
  • 1:07:52 On infrastructure costs, the consultant said the study is unlikely to produce precise cost estimates because timing and pricing vary widely, especially over long horizons.
  • 1:08:14 Instead, the team may be able to offer general realism checks and order-of-magnitude guidance from utility providers about what expansion might require.

Developer responsibility and environmental concerns around sewer 1:08:51

  • 1:08:51 A commissioner added that if zoning is changed for a developer, the expectation is that the developer would have to demonstrate infrastructure can be provided; otherwise the rezoning would not make sense.
  • 1:09:33 Another commissioner said the growth plan should at least help utilities avoid simply “playing catch-up” by giving them a clearer sense of where the county expects future pressure.
  • 1:10:35 A commissioner raised the recent controversy over sewer plans and discharge of effluent into local waterways, saying sewer solutions should not undermine creeks and water resources the county wants to protect.
  • 1:11:07 He said growth-area criteria should include not just whether sewer service exists, but also whether the type of sewer approach is environmentally acceptable.
  • 1:11:46 He also suggested the plan should be explicit about goals such as increasing county tax revenue and supporting affordable residential options for local families.
  • 1:12:52 Consultant agreed those are additional examples of tradeoffs the scenario process should try to quantify.

Consumer willingness to support local convenience retail 1:13:14

  • 1:13:14 A commissioner asked the Pleasantville-area resident whether she would actually pay somewhat higher prices at a local grocery store in order to keep money in Hickman County.
  • 1:13:47 She said yes, within reason, and noted she already sometimes pays more locally for convenience and to support county services funded by tax revenue.
  • 1:14:04 She added that specialized dietary needs sometimes limit what current local stores can provide.
  • 1:14:30 She acknowledged the tradeoff that local convenience growth can also mean more traffic.

New Business / Agenda Items 1:15:10

Next steps, stakeholder meeting, and second public-engagement round 1:15:10

  • 1:15:10 Consultant said the immediate next task is to draft place types that can populate the scenarios; he said commission feedback on scenario direction was needed before finalizing those.
  • 1:15:43 The team had already begun that work and hoped to wrap initial place-type development in early January.
  • 1:15:50 Draft scenario population was described as the next major step, with a schedule reference to February in the handout.
  • 1:15:59 Discussion turned to combining tasks where possible because it is difficult to keep asking stakeholders to return for repeated meetings.
  • 1:16:14 Consultant proposed a combined stakeholder session in late January or early February, including the utility and infrastructure stakeholders who participated earlier.
  • 1:16:36 He said draft place-type material would likely be dense and should be distributed in advance so commissioners are not seeing it cold during the meeting.
  • 1:16:59 At the same next meeting, the group also wants to plan the second round of public engagement.
  • 1:17:05 Consultant said the project scope still includes 4 public rounds plus the online interactive tool.
  • 1:17:22 Because of spring break and other scheduling issues, he suggested beginning to identify venues and dates for public engagement in mid-to-late March.
  • 1:17:40 He said the team hopes to wrap the remaining work over the next couple of months and target a draft deliverable around May.

Scheduling discussion for the next special meeting 1:18:03

  • 1:18:03 A commissioner asked how much time the next stakeholder session would require.
  • 1:18:27 Consultant said the current meeting had already run about 1 hour 15 minutes and that the next one should budget around 2 hours, especially if utility stakeholders attend.
  • 1:18:44 Commissioners agreed it likely should be separate from the regular Planning Commission meeting.
  • 1:18:52 It was noted that the regular meeting would be on February 4 and that the county commission meets January 27.
  • 1:19:12 Commissioners discussed Tuesday, January 28 as a possible date for the next special meeting, despite possible conflicts.
  • 1:19:50 Members asked that stakeholders be contacted in advance to avoid conflicts with utility or board meetings, with special emphasis on including electric and water utility representatives.
  • 1:20:39 Water infrastructure was singled out as a particularly important issue for the next discussion.
  • 1:20:53 Consultant closed by saying the next step is to use the commission’s guidance to draft place types and initial scenarios, then test them with utilities and other stakeholders for realism.

Adjournment 1:21:31

  • 1:21:31 A motion to adjourn was indicated; the transcript does not clearly capture a second or vote outcome.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
431 Responses Total recorded public-engagement responses 10:45
293 Responses Interactive-map responses 11:16
138 Responses Survey responses 11:16
47% Percentage Respondents identified as long-term residents 11:33
20 years Time period Threshold used for “longtime resident” category 11:33
4 Count Number of workshops referenced as showing consistent patterns 14:09
5 acres Area Approximate grid size used in halo analysis 14:53
15% Slope threshold Steep-slope cutoff in suitability analysis 23:54
20 years Planning horizon Timeframe used when discussing future change and preservation 13:39
10–15 years Planning horizon Example utility expansion timeframe needing policy guidance 49:41
4 Count Number of public-engagement rounds in scope for second phase 17:05
2 hours Meeting duration Estimated length for next stakeholder/utility session 1:18:27
1 hour 15 minutes Meeting duration Approximate duration reached during this meeting when discussing next steps 1:18:27
February 4 Date Regular Planning Commission meeting date mentioned 1:18:52
January 27 Date County commission meeting date mentioned as nearby scheduling point 1:18:52
January 28 Date Tentative date discussed for next special stakeholder meeting 1:19:12
May Target date Draft deliverable timeline 1:17:40