Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 (2026)

Procedure on submission of plats - Approval or disapproval - Contents - Hearings - Procedure in certain counties

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The commission shall approve or disapprove a plat within sixty (60) days after the initial consideration of the plat by the commission meeting in a regularly scheduled session, unless at the end of the sixty-day period there is a holiday or an unexpected interceding event that would close municipal or county offices and thus affect the normal computation of the sixty-day period, in which case the plat shall be approved or disapproved after the interrupted sixty-day period at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the commission; otherwise, the plat shall be deemed approved and a certificate to that effect shall be issued by the commission on demand. The applicant for the commission's approval may waive the time requirement set in this subsection (a) and consent to an extension or extensions of the applicable time period. When a plat has been filed with the appropriate officials of the planning commission, the plat shall be placed on the agenda of the planning commission within thirty (30) days of the filing or the next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting after the thirty-day period. The applicant may waive the time frame requirement for the appearance of the plat on the agenda.

(b) The ground of disapproval of any plat shall be stated upon the records of the commission.

(c) Any plat submitted to the commission shall contain the name and address of a person to whom notice of hearing shall be sent; and no plat shall be acted upon by the commission without affording a hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which shall be sent by mail to such address not less than five (5) days before the date fixed for such hearing.

(d) In counties having populations not less than three hundred twenty-five thousand (325,000) nor more than four hundred thousand (400,000), according to the 1990 federal census or any subsequent federal census, in the event the municipal planning commission approves or disapproves a plat after a hearing thereon, the applicant submitting the plat or any person who was a party for or against the plat request at the planning commission hearing shall have the right within thirty (30) days after such approval or disapproval to have the action of the municipal planning commission reviewed by the chief legislative body of the municipality having jurisdiction over zoning matters, who shall by majority vote approve or disapprove the plat. If the plat is approved, the secretary of the regional planning commission shall endorse the plat for recording as prescribed in § 13-3-402. No such plat shall be recorded until after the county court or other legislative body has acted on a request for a review of the action of the planning commission if there is a request within thirty (30) days.

Acts 1935, ch. 45, § 3; C. Supp. 1950, § 3407.12; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 13-604; Acts 1973, ch. 402, § 2; 1993, ch. 312, § 1; 2007, ch. 137, § 1; 2009, ch. 34, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2019 · leading case: Richardson's Brentwood Homes v. Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Mun. Plan. Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richardson's Brentwood Homes v. Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Mun. Plan. Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 (b)(1999). On January 6, the Commission notified Richardson of its actions in writing, stating: On January 5, 2004, the Planning Commission denied your request to re-subdivide Lot #45 within the Houston Levee Trace Subdivision.”

Andrew Bernard Shute, Jr. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, Davidson Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “In both petitions, the petitioners relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 (b), and on the case of Levy v.”

B & B Enter. of Wilson Co., LLC v. City of Lebanon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 (b) (1999). Requiring planning commissions to include the reasons for their actions in their official records promotes compliance with the law and protects against arbitrary decisions.”

Jack R. Owen Revocable Trust v. City of Germantown Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “In view of its holding that the planning commission’s recommendation was not a final order, the Sylvan Park Court pretermitted appellants’ argument that the planning commission’s “vote was ‘arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, illegal, and exceeded its jurisdiction;’ that it…”

Historic Sylvan Park, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, Davidson Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Residents argue that, for various reasons, the Planning Commission‟s vote was “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, illegal, and exceeded its jurisdiction”; that it violated due process, the law of the land, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 ; and that it “lacked substantial and…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304(b) — 1 case

Richardson's Brentwood Homes v. Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Mun. Plan. Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-304 (b)(1999). On January 6, the Commission notified Richardson of its actions in writing, stating: On January 5, 2004, the Planning Commission denied your request to re-subdivide Lot #45 within the Houston Levee Trace Subdivision.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.