Giles County Regional Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 1, 2026

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

1 September 2026

Chair Andy Edwards opened the meeting asking John Haislip to offer a prayer and lead the pledge.  The minutes of 4 August 2026 were moved for approval by Tommy Pope, seconded by Tommy Price, and were approved unanimously.  There were no public comments offered.  Chair Edwards noted the by-laws state the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) officers are to be elected in September; for 2026-2027 there are potential 6-7 vacancies to be filled (due in part to newly elected commissioners, and expiring terms of members); and timing of appointments to fill those vacancies are to be approved late September.   Given those circumstances Chair Edwards asked the rule to elect officers in September be suspended and officers elected in October 2026.  Motion to suspend the election of officers until October 2026 was made by John Haislip, seconded by Tommy Price, and was approved unanimously. 

Standards update progress – The Chair discussed the current status of the Standards noting suggestions from the June public meeting comments being integrated and highlighted into the document draft, and provided to members by email.  The Chair then asked for input on should those comments be approved now or, given new member additions, should wait until they have had a chance to review and potentially provide comments.  Commissioner Gayle Jones stated the Giles County attorney should review the changes and County Executive (CE) Knox Vanderpool asked is this still a working document (Chair yes), said he recommended this be passed to the next RTC and to the county attorney.  Kristen Pfeiffer noted the RPC is using the original and the changes are for clarification only, although per the CE those clarifications might be questioned as well.  Ms. Pfeiffer suggested the standards document be “cleaned up” for them to review and Brian Marks recommended having available by October.  John Haislip noted that as soon as the CE makes the appointments and they are approved they should get a copy of the draft standards.  Tommy Price noted that there are a lot of changes and the new members probably would like to see what is being changed.  Ms. Pfeiffer asked about the suggestions from Court Pugh, Land Surveyor at Essential Land Surveying & Mapping, Columbia, TN.  Chair Edwards noted that Mr. Pugh’s suggestions addressed in part dividing property into various lots with driveways connecting to main roads which, per Brian Marks, the RPC has not considered that a subdivision.  However, he said TCA requires developers to do soil surveys, and describes that process under subdivision codes.  Mr. Marks described both the potential costs and the time required for those surveys.  Enforcement of RPC requirements was discussed with the Chair and Mr. Marks noting the need to develop a packet or a document and include that in Part 3 of the standards.  The CE asked if the standards are online with Ms. Pfeiffer saying the last one approved is online, but wasn’t sure about the potential changes.  Changes to language for the approved plat included “scale no larger than 1” to 100 ft.  The CE asked about the fee structure with Mr. Marks saying the fees are to assure no loss to the county and for the developer is cost of doing business.  Question on paying the fee addressed whether the request is reviewed by the RPC (fee assigned) or is withdrawn prior to that review (no fee).  John Haislip recommended that language be included in the standards.  Sheet size of the plat 24×36 was considered, with Register of Deeds noting only the deed has to be recorded, the plat does not.  Chair Edwards addressed Appendix A, General Procedures, noting a new TN law, which changes how local governments can require property owners to dedicate land along existing public rights‑of‑way (ROW) for highway or transportation projects.  Ms. Pfeiffer said that’s a highway requirement, so would need the Highway Superintendent to review. 

A handout on additional suggestions offered by Mr. Pugh was addressed as follow: 

1.  Section 4.b – “Provided no new road or utility construction is required” addressed the broad use of the word “utility”.  The Chair said as stated is as defined in the TCA code with Mr. Price asking if that was sufficient.  Mr. Marks stated his understanding of “utility” in this instance would include gas, water, and electricity, and after the Chair noting could that service support more than one household, Mr. Marks said some houses on a road may have a dip pole servicing more than one household.  Ms. Pfeiffer said dividing acreage but with no building is not a subdivision and not under the RPC responsibilities.  She mentioned a previous meeting where individuals swapped land, and the RPC did not consider that a subdivision.  Tommy Price mentioned a recent visit with the Highway Department where he asked for the County’s road map, since the standards referenced such a document.  He showed a brochure which had been provided to him as the county’s road map, indicating that map lacked specificity.  (later action to be taken was to discuss with the county’s Road Superintendent and get a more updated map)
2. Section 4.b – Regarding non-conveyance restrictions, the Chair noted this had already been discussed.
3. Section 8.b Agency Signoffs – This suggestion addresses the CE or the Chair of the RPC’s responsibility in assisting in expediting responses from the relevant agencies.  The Chair said he recommended that be changed to say “may assist” rather than “will assist”
4. Appendix C, Section C – “engaging an outside consultant”, the suggestion addresses both the developer and the RPC having a say in which consultant would be hired.  Ms. Pfeiffer suggested “mutually agreed upon consultant” language be used.

The Chair recapped action items, i.e., provide two different standards, first the one approved, and second, a cleaned-up version of the proposed changes, suggestions for distribution to members of the RPC.   An updated Road Plan be requested from the Road Superintendent, and then include in 4.b.1. 

Unfinished Business – none. New Business – The Chair thanked John Haislip, Malcolm Moore and Tommy Pope for their dedicated service to the RPC, noting with the CE agreement that the vacancies for both commissioners and community representatives will be considered in the 21^st September 2026 full Legislative meeting.  The Chair also noted he would be in touch with Commissioner Caleb Savage, noted the Bylaws show a total of 11 members, with currently members totaling 10, and that there cannot be a majority of county commissioners within the membership.   Next Meeting planned for 13 October 2026.

Motion to adjourn made by Tommy Pope, seconded by John Haislip, and was approved unanimously.

ATTENDEES:  RPC members – Chair Andy Edwards, Tommy Pope, John Haislip, Malcolm Moore, Kristen Pfeiffer, Tommy Price, Brian Marks and Others in attendance – County Executive Knox Vanderpool, Commissioner Gayle Jones.