[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6261619,"mediaKeyId","3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e","parentId",3121046,"title","Votes at a glance: rezoning recommendations, site-plan approvals and deferrals from March 27 Planning Commission","audioSeconds",785,"startMs",1958000,"endMs",2743000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e&start=1958&end=2743","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e/thumbnail_1958000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6261619/Tennessee/Votes-at-a-glance-rezoning-recommendations-site-plan-approvals-and-deferrals-from-March-27-Planning-Commission","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261619-2d8173e0656cd06589c4d958a7533111/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741776&Signature=WVloWULJvX41VHuiRsjZswKoa~I7FWcDdK59mqxUWT2jQ-doYU4FAOwP86HE~p4iofn1JG0RRowgbeXQSY3Y3orvc-Va2k-3v9R~Bn8YWIPh~E4y4EoCsLZeq-uN5-wz5r1poQmFMQKS~NLA8b9XeF0PRtPIAEQd66ab0A0eDYoy~Noflvl~yaEgYnrWEfg-d8gtT0QKqFsj~3S~DqImCDiIX5uZkL-SM6JBQLs6ZcWD8PWOaSMBbdUoOvJLaut0S-UzKHsM7w9jPhGwdLTYvQBWVoAxQ91cpm9agmWCGieBJh3T6g5yegzLEfQfLntlYyoYA~vh6RvxXPEKWhVJFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Shelbyville, TN","date","2025-04-25T11:19:16.45Z","article","The Planning Commission on March 27 considered multiple rezoning and site-plan items. Below are the formal actions the commission recorded in that meeting, summarized for clarity.

1) Rezoning — Pearl Properties / 231 North (Track(s) 1 & 2): Favorable recommendation
- What: Rezoning parcels along U.S. 231 North from R-1 (low-density residential) to C-2 (general business) to clean up split zoning and accommodate commercial frontage.
- Details: One parcel under consideration was described as ~7.23 acres for the immediate ordinance; staff noted a larger combined area of roughly 22 acres across related parcels.
- Action: Motion for a favorable recommendation to city council for C-2 passed on roll call. The commission noted compatibility concerns at the residential rear of the parcels and cited buffering/setback and screening requirements to mitigate impacts.

2) Rezoning — R-3A (medium-high density residential) parcel on West Lane Street: Favorable recommendation
- What: A rezone to R-3A (multi-family/mixed-density) for a parcel south of West Lane Street, approximately 0.37–0.41 acres (site measurement pending survey).
- Action: Motion to forward a favorable recommendation to city council passed by roll call.

3) Cedar King transfer station (site-plan application): Deferred 60 days
- What: Site-plan application for a 15,000 sf transfer station and a 4,000 sf office addition on ~4.03 acres at 210 Cedar King Road; staff requested more time while the applicant completes a traffic study and resolves access easement negotiations.
- Action: Commission voted to defer the item for additional review; staff requested a 60-day deferral to allow completion of the traffic-impact study and easement negotiations.

4) Walmart distribution center (site-plan addition): Approved with procedural notifications
- What: Site plan for an addition to the existing Walmart distribution center (building size after addition cited as approximately 1,077,962 sf total after addition) off Frank Martin Road; staff reported concurrence from TDOT and the city engineer on the traffic study and recommended approval with procedural notifications.
- Action: Motion to approve with procedural notifications passed by roll call, with staff stipulating that no building permits be issued until outstanding utility and technical comments (including review by Shelbyville Power) are addressed.

5) Commercial development at 113 Cobb Street (site plan for four buildings): Approved with procedural notifications
- What: Four-building commercial development (~12,004 sf across multiple tenants) on ~4.85 acres; staff recommended approval contingent on right-of-way plan approval, transitional screening where feasible and review of building elevations for design compliance.
- Action: Motion to approve with four procedural notifications passed by roll call; transitional screening requirements were emphasized where the site abuts residential property.

6) Academic and Flight Operations Building / Aircraft Hangar (site plan, city-owned property near Hartshackle Road): Administrative referral / discussion
- What: A ~60,810 sf academic and flight operations building and hangar on ~20.8 acres (city-owned); staff presented the fully developed civil set and said drainage and erosion control plans are accepted by city stormwater engineering. Commissioners and staff discussed whether grading permits for this and similar public projects should be elevated to commission review or remain an administrative approval.
- Action: The commission referred the grading aspect to staff for administrative handling (see separate MTSU/grading item coverage). TDEC approvals and coordination with the city engineer were noted as prerequisites.

7) Administrative approvals and minor plats: Approved
- Several lot-line adjustments, minor subdivisions and material-change administrative approvals (including a material change for a previously reviewed elevation and lot-line shifts on White Street and other local streets) were recorded as administrative actions; staff indicated final plats remain subject to recording and technical corrections.

Ending: The commission approved multiple items with procedural conditions that require follow-up by staff and applicants (stormwater agreements, right-of-way plans, utility comments). Other large matters remain in negotiation or deferred pending additional technical studies and TDOT concurrence.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Regular Meeting - April 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved several favorable recommendations and site plans, and deferred others; this roundup lists each formal action, its outcome and key details.","taxTitle","Planning Commission Meetings, Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee","taxId",79594,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6261624,"Planning Commission defers Remington Forest rezoning as staff, developer and counsel continue negotiations",157,1708000,1865000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e&start=1708&end=1865","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e/thumbnail_1708000.jpg","/articles/6261624/Tennessee/Planning-Commission-defers-Remington-Forest-rezoning-as-staff-developer-and-counsel-continue-negotiations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261624-ce688f1e341afb9503f3434acf868d08/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741776&Signature=ecQEt2eUwkXzZTGSx43qAvZ0pdY1DJFqEyQBfmeySoOFI4aUfnhLENXNoilPjAUBbsmwI23szbr1kbuVXxz0rilN8256IWzcUXZGNXxF9v7YgsDVA0XLYnHn1odebAzlWBO2yMN7qf3LJEzWXOAlKMVLORDTZwK7KJVkHnUuXaSIDUS87iOvKZu3ZhSZz3lA9~Vo9lGm3yo5k6J6LyqZTnbR6xigiUiyMb644lZfCSLNHBbX0APjXzcxTcww0tMxfqWY7qxPqLr7d2YfQ1DCD6hg4G~ioEh7Gz3KfiLAYMqyB7Wowmzx66RZ3Mzd2wzINqxe5OwzsmNVRgh8jBDUGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on March 27 voted to defer consideration of a rezoning application for the Remington Forest planned-unit development, a large project that would convert approximately 158 acres to a mix of townhomes, single-family detached dwellings and commercial acreage.

Staff asked the commission to defer the application because negotiations with the developer continue, and staff and the applicant are still addressing recommendations from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and an updated traffic-impact study. Paul (planning staff) told the commission the matter needs more time so staff and counsel can be ready to present a full recommendation.

The application proposes roughly 315 townhomes on 33.7 acres, about 400 single-family detached dwellings on 114.5 acres and 9.83 acres of commercial zoning. Staff said the item has been deferred previously and that additional coordination was required to resolve TDOT recommendations and to update the traffic-impact study.

The commission passed a motion to defer the application; during the roll call every member present voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners emphasized that the commission itself does not negotiate terms with developers — those negotiations are carried out by city staff and, where appropriate, by the city council or legal counsel — and that the deferral allows staff and counsel to complete their discussions.

Ending: The Remington Forest application will not advance to city council while staff and the applicant continue to negotiate outstanding traffic and access issues. The commission recorded the deferral and expects staff to bring the item back when the recommended materials and council-level discussions are complete.","The Planning Commission voted to defer a large Remington Forest rezoning application after staff said negotiations with the developer and outstanding traffic-study concerns remain unresolved.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6261629,"Planning Commission adds MTSU grading item, debates whether grading reviews should be administrative",3924,926000,4850000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e&start=926&end=4850","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3121046-30a4ed51bb3c1fd105dfc1064439719e/thumbnail_926000.jpg","/articles/6261629/Tennessee/Planning-Commission-adds-MTSU-grading-item-debates-whether-grading-reviews-should-be-administrative","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261629-41a45cd4f46d4f5be959241ee31cf468/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741776&Signature=DtrquYORKqoLlnOmnLCFaaS5SUVOJMhrPYwQ6T1AhdqsLhgOLembmzZfHxjR9eHmhP-VApornBbUWl4s-ZR7XDD8t0trU~c8JH7fms0zuWDEHaWrEq0Psjc60y6YXPRQ~A3aYq6O7Au19rHqiN6sbo1lvmHVeOHnpW~f5C~grFq9gzQPWwug~v2a7umk4m4ZZmN80lRmqqt8zEwjZ2kKIU~5Qkdy5sfO8ZbH7oBlcCTEFqmQjz0vFcHpV3SV5jJp-SCoVYsZfivN9Jj95jwHuEzSCR7PVqJZKyPOpYQyYVebzuEka4oLv2epx4fNiEOuw9KDJY8LxD4LF92xsJlJsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on March 27 amended its agenda to add a grading-permit item for the Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) site plan and spent substantial time debating whether grading permits should require Planning Commission review or be handled administratively by city staff.

The commission approved the amended agenda to add “new business d,” the MTSU grading item. Planning staff members and commissioners then discussed whether grading review is part of the site-plan approval process or a separate administrative function handled by building and codes staff.

Planning staff said the MTSU package includes a fully developed plan and that grading can precede building permits in some cases, citing previous projects where grading permits were issued before the building permit. Commissioners and staff differed on practice: some said grading review traditionally sits with building and codes and can be handled administratively; others said grading should follow site-plan approval because grading determines detention ponds, parking layouts and other permanent site features.

During the discussion commissioners framed the policy question in practical terms: if a project includes permanent features such as parking lots or structures, should that trigger Planning Commission review; if a package is only mass grading without a building plan, can staff review it administratively? Staff noted past projects (for example, a Walmart distribution-center grading) that were administratively handled because fully developed grading and stormwater plans were submitted to permitting staff.

After debate the commission made a motion to refer the MTSU grading item back to staff for administrative handling, with the motion recorded as “refer back to staff with no negative comments about the grading permit.” The motion passed on a roll call with members voting in favor. The commission added a caveat discussed during debate: if an administrative grading approval precedes a later site-plan review and the planning commission finds the later site plan unacceptable, the property owner may need to adjust grading or site work at the owner’s expense.

Commissioners also discussed a broader, recurring policy question: whether the city’s design standards or subdivision regulations should be revised to clarify which elements require Planning Commission review (for example, permanent parking lots and building envelopes) and which can be handled administratively (purely temporary or preliminary earthwork). Several commissioners suggested amending the design standards to delegate small material changes to staff and to make clear thresholds for when commission review is required.

Tom (planning staff) told the commission the MTSU package includes the full civil set, an accepted drainage report and erosion control plans and that the project will require TDEC review because of the scope of grading. Staff also flagged coordination needs with the city engineer and Shelbyville Power on utilities and on specific technical elements such as refrigeration condensate and sewer connections.

The panel agreed to refer the MTSU grading permit to staff rather than hold a separate Planning Commission review, but the conversation highlighted a continuing administrative policy question that staff said will be brought back to the commission in coming months if the body wants formal written thresholds in the design standards.

Ending: The commission’s procedural decision keeps the MTSU grading work moving toward construction while prompting staff and commissioners to consider a formal change to local review thresholds so future applicants and reviewers have clearer rules about when grading triggers Planning Commission review.","The Planning Commission amended its agenda to add a grading-permit item for the MTSU site and debated whether grading permits should be handled administratively or require commission review; the commission ultimately referred the MTSU grading item back to staff with no negative comments but discussed changing local practice and design standards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: rezoning recommendations, site-plan approvals and deferrals from March 27 Planning Commission

Planning Commission defers Remington Forest rezoning as staff, developer and counsel continue negotiations

Planning Commission adds MTSU grading item, debates whether grading reviews should be administrative