Wilson County stormwater staff and consultants told the county board at a May 1 meeting that they have drafted a short note to add to boundary surveys for parcels larger than five acres to warn prospective buyers that environmental and stormwater permits may be required if they develop the property.

“It's a cautionary note. It's an awareness note,” Stormwater Director James Vaden told the board, describing the draft language as a nonbinding disclosure that county staff and surveyors would place on boundary surveys so buyers will be notified of potential permit needs before purchase. Consulting engineer Jerry Warren said the effort responds to an increase in lots larger than five acres that do not go through the planning review process and so often lack early notice of stormwater and aquatic-resource requirements.

Why it matters: under state planning rules discussed at the meeting, tracts or lots larger than five acres typically do not trigger the local subdivision review that would otherwise identify critical-lot conditions, blue-line streams or required permits. County staff said Wilson County's MS4 stormwater permit and the county’s stormwater ordinance create obligations that apply to development activity even when a parcel avoided the planning-review process because of its size. Warren read the permit’s definition of a “common plan of development,” which he said captures situations where multiple disturbances or sales on contiguous parcels can trigger stormwater requirements even if work occurs at different times or under different owners.

Board members raised legal and implementation questions. Commissioners asked whether Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) planning provisions or other state law limit the county’s ability to require notes on boundary surveys; staff said they had consulted CTAS and MTAS and that a TDEC assistant director joined a recent call and indicated the county’s approach appeared to be on the right track. Staff also reported outreach to surveyors and the development community produced concerns, and that one East Tennessee county had proposed a signature block; staff recommended a cautionary note rather than a signature requirement to reduce legal risk and burden.

Next steps and staff direction: the stormwater board recommended reconvening a stakeholder group (planning staff, register of deeds, surveyors, development representatives and the county attorney) to finalize language. Planning staff agreed to work with the register of deeds and prepare a standard operating procedure so the note would be required on boundary surveys submitted for recording; staff said the register of deeds would not record a boundary survey without the note in place. Several commissioners cautioned that the county must be on firm legal footing to avoid lawsuits and asked staff to confirm authority with the county attorney; staff agreed to do so and bring a revised proposal back to the board next month.

During the stormwater report, staff also summarized outreach and programs: Vaden said the department completed its fifteenth annual cleanup event with four county schools participating and 592 children collecting 617 bags of trash. The board voted to accept the stormwater report by voice vote.

The county did not adopt the draft survey note at the meeting; staff described the change as an advance step that will require final legal review and stakeholder signoff before implementation.