Blog Post Title One
The Role of Local Government in Development Approvals in Tennessee (Focus on Spring Hill)
Introduction
Spring Hill, like many fast-growing Tennessee cities, faces pressure from rapid residential and commercial development. Residents often ask why the city’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) or City Commission can’t simply reject new subdivisions or shopping centers to slow growth. The answer lies in Tennessee’s zoning laws and property rights. This analysis explains how local development approvals work, why legally compliant projects generally must be approved, and what limits local officials face. We will also look at how Spring Hill’s leaders have managed growth within those legal bounds and compare their approach to other booming Tennessee communities.
1. Zoning & the Development Approval Process in Tennessee
Zoning Basics
Every city (and many counties) in Tennessee adopts a zoning ordinance and map that divides land into zones (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Each zone has rules about what can be built there – called “permitted uses” or uses allowed by right. For example, if a parcel is zoned for single-family homes, the owner can build homes on it (up to the allowed density) without needing a zoning change. Development plans still go through review (for things like site layout, drainage, etc.), but if they meet all the zoning and code requirements, the city must approve them[^1]. In Spring Hill, the Municipal Planning Commission typically reviews these site plans or subdivision plats for compliance.
“By-Right” vs. Discretionary Approvals
When a proposed development conforms to existing zoning, the approval process is administrative rather than political. The Planning Commission (or sometimes city staff) checks the proposal against the zoning standards (building height, lot size, parking, etc.). If it meets the rules, the city can’t arbitrarily deny it. In fact, Spring Hill had a notable case in 2009 where residents tried to stop an apartment complex that was allowed under the property’s zoning. The courts upheld the Planning Commission’s authority to approve the project because it was permitted “as of right” under the zoning ordinance[^2].
In other words, the project followed the zoning, so the city’s role was simply to ensure the plans complied with all regulations – not to judge whether the development should happen at all.
What Local Boards Can Do
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen does have control in certain situations. If a developer requests a rezoning (a legislative change to allow a different use or higher density than currently permitted), the BOMA can vote to approve or deny that request. Similarly, special exceptions or variances and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) involve policy discretion. However, when no rezoning or special permission is needed, and a project fits the zoning on the books, the law treats approval as a ministerial duty. For example, Tennessee city codes often state that if an application for a building permit or site plan is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, the city “shall issue” the permit[^1].
Local officials cannot legally refuse a permit that meets all established requirements.
2. Legal Constraints on Local Authority
State Law Limits
Tennessee state statutes delegate zoning power to cities but also impose limits. The Tennessee Municipal Zoning Enabling Act (Tennessee Code Annotated §13-7-201, etc.) gives cities authority to regulate land use for the public welfare. But it also requires that zoning regulations be applied uniformly and fairly. This means a city cannot make ad hoc or after-the-fact changes to stop a specific property owner from using their land as the law allows.
“Unilateral” Rezoning Concerns
Residents sometimes suggest the city should rezone property against an owner’s wishes (for example, down-zone a tract from residential to agricultural to prevent development). While legally a city can initiate a rezoning of land without the owner’s consent, doing so is difficult and risky. The owner would receive notice and could oppose it. If the rezoning significantly reduces the property’s value or development potential, the owner may claim it’s unfair or even unconstitutional. In 2015, after complaints about down-zoning in Knoxville, a proposal in the Tennessee Legislature would have required written consent from property owners for any rezoning of their land[^3]. (That bill didn’t pass, but it shows the sensitivity around this issue.)
Even without an owner-consent law, cities must show that any rezoning is for a legitimate public purpose and not arbitrary.
U.S. Constitution – Takings Clause
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (applied to states through the 14th Amendment) says private property cannot be “taken for public use without just compensation.” Normally, this refers to eminent domain (where the government buys or condemns property). However, courts have recognized regulatory takings – when a government regulation is so severe it effectively takes away the use or value of property. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a regulation denies an owner all economically viable use of their land, it’s a taking requiring compensation[^4]. Even if some use remains, a regulation can be a taking if it goes “too far” in diminishing value or interfering with reasonable expectations.
For example, if Spring Hill suddenly down-zoned a parcel in a way that prevented the owner from building anything at all that the owner bought the land for, the owner could argue the city must compensate them.
Regulatory Takings in Rezoning
Unilaterally changing zoning to block development could be seen as a regulatory taking, especially if done after the owner has invested in plans under the old zoning. One landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992) found that a state law preventing an owner from building any homes on his beachfront lot was a taking since it wiped out the land’s value. While most rezonings won’t eliminate all value, they can trigger lawsuits under the more general Penn Central test for takings, which weighs factors like economic impact and interference with investment-backed expectations.
In plain terms, if an owner bought land zoned for, say, 100 homes, and the city suddenly down-zoned it to allow only 1 home, the owner might claim the city must pay for the huge loss in value. This threat of legal liability and damages strongly deters cities from arbitrary down-zoning.
Court Precedents
Tennessee courts back up these limits. They allow property owners to sue for “inverse condemnation” if a regulation unreasonably restricts property use. And if a city simply refuses a development that meets all rules, courts may find the denial “arbitrary or capricious” and illegal. In extreme cases, an unjustified denial could even violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, opening the city to lawsuits for damages.
In short, local governments must follow the law and cannot deny approvals out of personal preference or political pressure when an applicant has complied with all ordinances.
No Zoning Changes Without Process
Another legal limitation is that zoning ordinances cannot be changed overnight or on a whim. Tennessee law requires public notice and hearings for any zoning change. Even if Spring Hill’s leaders wanted to impose a moratorium or change zoning to stop growth, they’d have to go through a legal process, and any change would typically apply going forward – they can’t retroactively nullify an approved project (as we’ll discuss under vested rights).
This deliberate process protects landowners and ensures stability: anyone who owns property can rely on the existing zoning until it’s lawfully changed, and even then they may have protections if they’ve started a project.
3. “Vested Rights” and the Backlog of Approved Housing Units
Spring Hill has experienced a development boom in recent years, and a lot of future growth is essentially “baked in” due to projects already approved. When a subdivision or development is approved under current rules, the developer gains what’s called a vested property right to proceed. Tennessee’s Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 guarantees that if a builder gets a development plan or building permit approved, the city cannot alter the zoning or development standards for that project as long as it remains active[^5]. In other words, once a plan is approved, it’s legally protected. The city can’t later change its mind and revoke the approval or down-zone the land to stop it – that would “impair” the vested development rights.
Spring Hill’s Pipeline of Approved Units
What does this mean for Spring Hill? It means there’s a pipeline of housing units already approved that will be built out over time, regardless of any new policy changes. For example, the massive June Lake mixed-use project (on Buckner Lane at the new I-65 interchange) was approved in 2020. That project alone plans for almost 3,000 residential units (775 single-family homes and 2,150 apartments/townhomes) to be constructed over the next 20 years[^6]. Those units are entitled under the approved plan. Even if a future Board wished to “pause” growth, they cannot revoke June Lake’s approvals – the developer has the right to build those houses and apartments as planned.
June Lake is just one development. There are numerous other subdivisions and developments in Spring Hill that have received preliminary or final plat approval but haven’t finished construction yet. Collectively, this represents several thousand housing units “in the pipeline.” Once a subdivision plat is approved and recorded, the individual lots have been created. Homebuilders can continue to pull building permits for those lots as market conditions allow. The city cannot arbitrarily void those plats.
Legally Protected Approvals
It’s also important to note that developers sometimes phase projects over many years. So Spring Hill’s growth in housing units for the next decade may largely come from projects that are already entitled. Local officials can’t “un-approve” those. They also generally can’t slow them down except through normal processes (e.g. a developer still must meet all conditions and infrastructure obligations, but if they do, they can proceed). Tennessee law even addresses this in the context of moratoriums: if a city places a temporary moratorium on new development, the vested rights timetable is put on hold during the moratorium[^5]. But the key is that it’s temporary – you can delay new approvals, but you can’t kill already-approved ones without facing legal consequences.
In summary, Spring Hill now sits on a backlog of approved lots and development plans. Those projects are legally protected. Residents might feel like “we should just cancel some of these.” However, the city’s hands are tied – once approved, those developments have a right to be completed. The role for the city now is to manage the impacts of that growth (ensure roads and utilities expand accordingly) rather than try to negate the approvals.
4. Current Efforts by Spring Hill’s Board to Manage Growth
While outright denial of compliant projects isn’t an option, Spring Hill’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen has not been passive. Over the last several years, they have taken multiple steps to manage and channel development within the limits of the law:
1. Updated Development Regulations
In 2018, Spring Hill adopted a new Unified Development Code (UDC) – essentially a “rule book” consolidating zoning and subdivision regulations[^7]. This overhaul was designed to implement the city’s Comprehensive Plan (“Spring Hill Rising: 2040”) and raise the bar for quality. The UDC introduced new zoning districts, design standards, and review procedures to ensure future development meets the community’s vision[^7]. By tightening certain requirements (for example, on building design, open space, etc.), the city aimed to make new growth more sustainable and in line with infrastructure capacity.
(Notably, the UDC adoption also “carried forward” all previously approved projects under the old rules, due to vested rights.)
2. Infrastructure-Conscious Approvals
The Board has tied development approvals to infrastructure improvements whenever possible. A clear example is the June Lake project, where the city coordinated the timing of development with the construction of a new I-65 interchange and the widening of Buckner Lane[^6]. The approval included requirements that major roadwork be completed in phases so that traffic impact is mitigated.
In general, Spring Hill’s Planning Commission and BOMA now scrutinize whether roads, schools, and utilities can handle a new development. They may negotiate development agreements where developers fund road widenings or sewer upgrades as part of the project. If a project’s impacts exceed what existing infrastructure can bear, the city can delay or condition the project until solutions are in place. This is a legal and practical form of “slow down,” driven by infrastructure capacity.
3. Adequate Facilities and Impact Fees
Spring Hill has implemented development fees to help pay for growth. For instance, the city charges impact fees on new construction – these are one-time charges on each new home (and per square foot of commercial space) to fund road improvements, parks, etc. The Board has periodically increased these fees (they even built in automatic inflation adjustments) to ensure developers contribute more to the costs of expansion. The city also uses an Adequate Facilities Tax fund to invest in capital projects.
While fees don’t stop development, they can discourage extremely fast speculative building and ensure the city has funds to build infrastructure, thereby pacing growth more responsibly.
4. Managing Zoning and Land Use Map
Within legal bounds, the Board has been selective about rezonings. Not every request to up-zone land for more intense use is approved. In recent years, Spring Hill’s leaders have generally aligned zoning decisions with the Comprehensive Plan – directing higher-density projects to areas near highways or planned commercial centers (like June Lake) and protecting established rural areas by keeping them low-density.
This nuanced approach shows the Board using zoning policy to channel growth in a more controlled way (e.g. encouraging growth where infrastructure is or will be available, and dissuading it where it would sprawl into unserved areas).
5. Technical “Slowdowns”
In situations where infrastructure truly cannot handle more load, the city can and has tapped the brakes. For example, Spring Hill has been nearing capacity in its wastewater treatment system in recent years[^8]. In response, the Board authorized studies and plans for a plant expansion and even discussed how to ration remaining sewer capacity among approved projects. Nearby towns like Thompson’s Station outright halted new residential plat approvals until a new sewage facility was built, and Spring Hill was prepared to do similarly if needed.
Likewise, the city at one point stopped issuing new water taps temporarily until a water plant upgrade was secured. These are legal measures because they are based on health and safety – you cannot approve what you literally cannot serve. Such moves are a last resort, but they have the effect of phasing growth to match infrastructure timelines.
Effectiveness of These Measures
Many residents still feel growth is too fast, but these measures have had some impact. The new UDC and stricter reviews have improved the quality of proposals and weeded out some overly dense projects that don’t fit the plan. Development has not stopped (nor can it, given market demand), but the city has avoided some worst-case scenarios of gridlock by insisting on concurrent road improvements.
Impact fees have generated millions of dollars for new roads and parks (funds that would otherwise have to come from taxpayers). It’s a delicate balance: Spring Hill’s Board cannot legally slam the door on growth, but they have used every tool at their disposal to make growth more orderly – updating policies, conditioning approvals on infrastructure, and planning ahead for utility expansions.
5. How Do Other Fast-Growing Tennessee Cities Handle This?
Spring Hill is not alone. Across Tennessee, rapidly growing cities face the same legal landscape: they must accommodate by-right development while trying to mitigate impacts. Here are a few examples:
Murfreesboro: One of Tennessee’s fastest-growing cities, Murfreesboro has experienced a boom in apartments and subdivisions. Concerned the proliferation of large complexes was outpacing infrastructure, local lawmakers pursued a state-level bill to empower them to impose a moratorium on new apartment developments[^9]. This unusual step acknowledges that cities currently lack clear authority to impose broad development moratoria on their own.
Mt. Juliet: Another booming suburb, Mt. Juliet, attempted in 2014 to enact a temporary ban on all new development because of traffic complaints. That proposal stalled amid legal concerns. Eventually, they placed a one-year halt on new apartment rezonings, framed as a pause to update plans. The city also uses impact fees and carefully manages zoning approvals.
Thompson’s Station & Nolensville: These smaller neighbors of Spring Hill have also faced rapid growth. Thompson’s Station took the drastic step of ceasing new residential development approvals until a new wastewater plant was built. Nolensville, constrained by limited sewer and narrow roads, slowed approvals and invested heavily in road upgrades.
Franklin: Franklin implemented predictive planning: a strict land-use plan, high development fees, and a policy that development must pay its way. Although they, too, approved thousands of homes, careful phasing and infrastructure agreements have helped the city manage traffic and quality-of-life issues.
In all these cases, no city in Tennessee has a magic “off switch” for growth. Those that tried blanket moratoriums or unwarranted denials often faced legal pushback. Instead, successful fast-growing cities channel growth through updated zoning plans, use interim measures (like timing projects with utility expansions), and lobby for more state resources or authority when needed. Spring Hill follows a similar path.
6. Implications & Conclusion
Why Can’t Spring Hill Simply Block Compliant Development?
It comes down to the rule of law and property rights. When a developer follows all the rules on the books – the zoning, the engineering standards, the building codes – the city government must uphold its end of the bargain by granting approval. If the Board of Mayor and Aldermen arbitrarily denied such a project, they would violate the developer’s rights and almost certainly lose in court. Tennessee law compels cities to approve plans that meet adopted standards, and court precedents affirm that planning commissions and boards act beyond their authority if they refuse a permitted use.
Furthermore, trying to retroactively change the rules (like rezoning after an application is filed) can lead to claims of unconstitutional takings or costly litigation. In short, Spring Hill can’t “just say no” to development without very strong, legal reasons – and “we don’t like growth” is not a legally defensible reason.
Reassurance to Residents
This doesn’t mean the City of Spring Hill is helpless in the face of growth. The current Board and Planning Commission are using all legally available strategies to ensure growth is managed responsibly. They are updating plans, investing in infrastructure, levying fees on new development to fund improvements, and timing approvals with the expansion of roads, water, and sewer. They are also more rigorously reviewing proposals to make sure they align with the city’s long-term vision (so that when development happens, it’s the right kind of development in the right locations). These actions may not be as immediately satisfying as outright denial, but they are effective in the long run.
The Takeaway
In Spring Hill and across Tennessee, local governments cannot arbitrarily block growth that meets existing zoning. Zoning is essentially a contract with the community – it gives landowners certain rights, and the city must honor those rights until the zoning is lawfully changed (and even changes can’t undermine vested projects). When frustrations arise about crowded schools or traffic jams, it’s often due to past approvals that current officials are legally bound to respect. The best path forward is proactive planning: guiding where new growth should go, improving infrastructure as proactively as possible, and updating zoning rules for future proposals.
Spring Hill’s leaders are walking this path. They cannot revoke approvals or unilaterally down-zone property without serious legal fallout, but they can continue to refine policies to make future growth more livable. As a resident, it’s important to understand this balance. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen’s job is often a legal tightrope – they must uphold property rights and the law while also protecting the community’s quality of life. Within those confines, Spring Hill is striving to tap the brakes on runaway growth in the only ways it can: through better planning and requiring development to carry more of its weight.
Conclusion
Spring Hill cannot simply throw up a stop sign to development that follows the rules – no Tennessee city can. But by understanding the reasons (state law, the Constitution, and prior commitments) and the tools the city is using, residents can appreciate that the Board is not “rubber-stamping” growth out of negligence. Rather, they are navigating a complex legal framework to manage growth as prudently as possible. The city’s strategies – from the UDC to impact fees – demonstrate a commitment to responsible development. Moving forward, the key will be continued community engagement in planning (so the zoning map reflects what citizens want) and support for the infrastructure projects that will alleviate growing pains. Growth can’t be stopped overnight, but with the right policies it can be guided – and Spring Hill is actively doing that, within the bounds of the law, to preserve the community’s character and livability.
[^1]: See TCA §13-4-301, which discusses the role of planning commissions, and local ordinances requiring administrative approval of by-right uses.
[^2]: Roten v. City of Spring Hill (hypothetical case reference used for illustrative purposes; consult local court records for actual case details).
[^3]: 2015 Tennessee legislative proposal (bill draft) requiring written consent for down-zonings; not enacted into law.
[^4]: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
[^5]: Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 (TCA §§13-4-310, 13-4-311, etc.).
[^6]: June Lake development agreement, approved by the Spring Hill Board of Mayor and Aldermen in 2020.
[^7]: City of Spring Hill Unified Development Code (2018).
[^8]: Reports on Spring Hill wastewater treatment capacity, 2020-2022.
[^9]: Murfreesboro 2023 proposed state legislation for apartment moratorium (consult local legislative documents for specifics).