By Katie Northcott, News Director
At the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) meeting on Monday, May 11, four residents spoke in opposition of repealing the ordinance adopting 2045 Comprehensive Plan and re-adopting the plan as a resolution.
The plan was adopted by ordinance on its second reading at the March 23 meeting of the BOMA. It was developed after numerous citizens raised a strong objection to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which was proposed in 2020. The 2045 plan was developed with input from a board of concerned citizens. The plan is designed to guide the next 20 years of growth in Tullahoma.
“We finally have something that this group worked out, that citizens are happy with,” Tullahoma resident Maureen Burke said. “We understand that changing it to a resolution would lessen the safeguards that are put in place and allow flexibility to developers. … We still are concerned about growth, and we have very few protections as citizens of Tullahoma.”
Alderman Busch Thoma introduced the idea or repealing and re-adopting the plan to the BOMA at its April 27 meeting. An item proposing that the ordinance be repealed was added to the agenda at the April 27 meeting without public notice. The repeal passed 5-2 (Aldermen Kurt Glick and Bobbie Wilson opposed) on its first reading on April 27. The repeal must pass a second reading to become effective.
Thoma had corresponded with the city attorneys regarding the issue, and City Attorney Brittany Hoskins agreed to send her research to the BOMA.
She sent her research to the BOMA via email on Tuesday, April 28. Her email is attached below and was cited in the above two paragraphs:
“Ordinances are binding, whereas resolutions are considered ‘official endorsements,” Hoskins said in the email. “If the Board adopts the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance, this blurs the line and invites arguments that the plan is binding in ways that it shouldn’t be.”
Hoskins said that developers can argue that the city is legally bound to follow an ordinance strictly while “a resolution preserves flexibility to approve projects that differ from the plan with justification.”
She cited Chattanooga, Franklin, and Knoxville as examples of Tennessee cities that have recently opted to adopt their comprehensive plans by resolution rather than by ordinance.
Hoskins explained the other cities’ reasoning:
“A Comprehensive Plan is advisory in nature and serves as a policy guide, but it is not itself a regulatory enactment. While zoning ordinances must be adopted by ordinance because they impose binding land use regulations, the Comprehensive Plan does not function that way. For that reason, many municipalities adopt or acknowledge Comprehensive Plans by resolution rather than ordinance in order to preserve appropriate flexibility and avoid unintentionally creating the impression that the Plan is legally binding in the same manner as zoning.”
At the May 11 meeting, Tullahoma residents cited concerns about the repeal being introduced without first being given a public hearing, a resolution appearing on the May 11 agenda without a second reading on repealing the ordinance, and potential violations of state law.
In response to concern about the lack of a public hearing, Tullahoma Mayor Lynn Sebourn said that the BOMA would review the city code and conduct a public hearing if it is required.
Since the May 11 meeting, the City of Tullahoma has posted a public notice on its website, notifying the public that repeal will be considered on its first reading at the regularly scheduled BOMA meeting on July 13.
In response to concern about a resolution appearing on the May 11 agenda without a second reading on repealing the ordinance, Sebourn said that the second reading had been omitted due to human error. Sebourn suggested that the item adopting the Comprehensive Plan by resolution be removed from the agenda of the May 11 meeting and be considered alongside the second reading of the repeal at a later meeting.
The BOMA voted unanimously to remove the resolution from the agenda.
Some speakers cited a portion of the Tennessee Code Annotated 13-3-304, which was cited in the proposed resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan and is copied below:
“The county legislative body, by resolution or the municipal legislative body by ordinance, may adopt the general regional plan, or in the case of the municipality, their element of the plan as certified by the planning commission.”
Former Tullahoma Alderman Daniel Berry was one citizen who brought up concerns that the state code was being misrepresented.
“One rule for counties, a different rule for cities. Counties used resolutions, cities–Tullahoma–use ordinances,” Berry said. “That distinction exists because it matters. An ordinance requires two public readings. It gives residents a guaranteed right to show up and object.”
Berry suggested that TCA 13-3-304 was deliberately misquoted in the resolution.
Glick raised a question about whether Hoskins should be allowed to address the BOMA about the public’s concern in the May 11 meeting, saying he had been blindsided by attorney opinions at previous meetings. The BOMA voted 5-2 (Glick and Alderman Jerry Mathis opposed) to allow Hoskins to speak.
Hoskins explained that in legal terms “may” is permissive, while “shall” is mandatory. She said that if lawmakers wished to require municipalities to adopt Comprehensive Plans by ordinance only, those lawmakers would have used “shall” in the place of “may.” She said that many cities in Tennessee have adopted their Comprehensive Plans by resolution.
“Please, look into other cities yourselves. It’s very hard to find any city that’s passing these by ordinance because everyone understands that these are advisory documents, and they’re meant to remain advisory documents, not to be binding,” Hoskins said.
Glick pushed back on Hoskins’ reading of the state code, arguing that an intuitive reading of the code indicated that a municipality must adopt its comprehensive plan by ordinance. Hoskins responded that the legal reading of the code indicates that municipalities are not required to adopt Comprehensive Plans as ordinances.
Since the item considering the Comprehensive Plan was removed from the agenda, no further action was taken on the item at the May 11 meeting. The next meeting of the BOMA will be June 1. The Comprehensive Plan will likely not appear on a BOMA agenda again until July 13.
The post Tullahoma Residents Speak Against Comprehensive Plan Being Adopted as Resolution Instead of Ordinance appeared first on Thunder Radio.
