WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 652

Zoning - As introduced, prohibits local governments or planning commissions from requiring more than one means of ingress and egress into a proposed subdivision unless the proposed subdivision has at least 70 residential dwellings. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7 and Title 13.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Tim Hicks

Tennessee bill caps local subdivision access requirements to one entrance unless development exceeds 70 units, reducing zoning restrictions to ease housing development costs.

Taken off notice for cal in s/c Cities & Counties Subcommittee of State & Local Government Committee
#zoning
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 652

Legislative bill overview

HB 652 restricts local governments and planning commissions from requiring multiple entry/exit routes (ingress and egress) for new subdivisions unless the development contains at least 70 residential units. Currently, many municipalities require multiple access points for safety and traffic management reasons. The bill amends multiple sections of Tennessee Code to standardize this requirement across the state.

Why is this important

Access requirements significantly affect development costs, timelines, and approval processes for residential subdivisions. This bill could reduce barriers to housing development and lower construction costs by simplifying infrastructure requirements, but may also impact emergency response capabilities, traffic flow, and neighborhood safety in smaller developments. The change essentially shifts zoning authority away from local governments toward a state-mandated threshold.

Potential points of contention

  • Emergency services impact: Fire departments and emergency responders often cite multiple access points as critical for response times and evacuation safety, especially in subdivisions with dead-end roads
  • Local control vs. state mandate: The bill reduces municipal zoning authority, which some view as overreach while others see it as reducing "unnecessary" local restrictions that increase housing costs
  • Traffic and congestion: Single-access subdivisions can create bottlenecks during peak hours and limit alternative routes during emergencies or road closures
  • Development incentives vs. safety tradeoffs: Supporters argue this reduces housing costs; opponents worry it prioritizes developer convenience over public safety infrastructure
  • Threshold questions: The 70-unit threshold is arbitrary—some ask why this number specifically and whether smaller developments should still have safety requirements

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.