Why I voted to “loosen development restrictions on agricultural land” in Spring Hill
I have gotten a few questions from constituents over the past week about a vote from last Monday’s BOMA meeting and I wanted to take a second to explain my vote. The title of this blog is a nod to this article from the Williamson Home Page that was written about the vote. The article was written by Alexander Willis, a great writer and even better human, but I would disagree with him on his characterization of Ordinance 21-29, the ordinance at issue. I do not believe that the headline and article accurately reflect the nuance of the argument that was before the Board of Mayor and Alderman. I want to break down, from my perspective, what the ordinance does and why I think it makes sense for Spring Hill.
What Ordinance 21-29 Does
The ordinance allows *one* single family home to be built on agricultural properties of at least 15 acres in size in Spring Hill. Technically “loosening development restrictions on agricultural land,” but not allowing irresponsible development to run rampant as the headline would suggest. This ordinance is three times more restrictive than the restrictive Williamson County regulations passed last year. There are 46 of these AG zoned properties in Spring Hill, meaning that this ordinance could, at most, enable 46 new homes to be built.
why I think it makes sense
As I talked about during our November 1st Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting during discussion on this item, there are four reasons why I think this ordinance makes sense for Spring Hill:
1. As the current law stands (before this ordinance), a farmer can farm his land in AG zoned property, but can’t build a house on his farm. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
2. Other aldermen suggested that anyone who wants to build a house on their AG zoned property apply to re-zone their property to R-A (residential agricultural zoning), the next zoning classification from AG. The problem is that this zoning allows one house per 2 acres! This means that if ONE 100 acre parcel did this (not uncommon for large AG properties), it would cause more houses to be built than this entire ordinance would allow. Not passing this ordinance incentivizes *more* houses being built, not less.
3. Depriving an AG zoned property owner from building one single family home on their property increases the likelihood that the owner, who can’t use their land for their own residential purposes, will sell to developers who will develop the property as a higher density residential neighborhood. In that case, you don’t get one home on a piece of property, you get hundreds of homes on a piece of property. Again, another way that not passing this ordinance incentivizes more houses being built, not less.
4. The BOMA was advised by our City Attorney that not allowing one home to be built on AG property would be considered a regulatory taking and the city could be sued because of a change in our zoning regulations in 2018.
It is incredibly important to me that we protect the rural nature that makes Spring Hill and Middle Tennessee so unique and special. I know that because I was born and raised here…I know how special this area is.
It’s easy to be opposed to an ordinance that allows “more development.” It’s hard to actually dig into the implications of legislation and do things that will actually slow development and protect the rural areas in Spring Hill. I believe this ordinance does those two things.