[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6473098,"mediaKeyId","5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f","parentId",5760698,"title","BZA denies major home-based tree-service request at Gee Road, citing neighborhood impact concerns","audioSeconds",1198,"startMs",3003000,"endMs",4201000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f&start=3003&end=4201","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f/thumbnail_3003000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6473098/Rutherford-County/Tennessee/BZA-denies-major-home-based-tree-service-request-at-Gee-Road-citing-neighborhood-impact-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473098-452abc2ee393e087be87aa2a6019892a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177222&Signature=GqGEtNoaywFDIHesWzfIaAMeXxFJdEPUEnRLl9XsWUI~m2Dkr7SWq6HUiJhRPmGoDBkjmqChFgl0hRFX0RmhTFkoUEwaLo8O5wisSGasurwk878xn9r2lHw4W0OreHjM8qHsvd-E6SdNoAiazE8ACJiKuEmr8sU3H4Ap7EMjIXfsIK1jq0EPG4kxsMvFZrkTMpOFYgFDRrQI-ZlWlg6kgAKGHhzH2Ivzys5kYhr-weST9R8a6xf7DbJUEmmCVgmo7xaMA3Kn~e6pX0Ed6MoeNsMXlivZ7BjavKTMBWuld6drh5U8l7CTZullYt~EV7wGxb6GR5mLJZRujdYOA~ujPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Rutherford County, TN","date","2025-09-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a request for a major home-based business to operate a tree-trimming and removal service from a residence at 2079 Gee Road.

Planning staff described the 1.17-acre RM-zoned site and said the applicant sought approval to operate a tree service with three nonresident employees and to store four work vehicles on the property, including a bucket truck and a chipper truck. Staff noted concerns about outdoor storage and recommended conditions if the board chose to approve, but reported that the request met some but not all criteria for a major home-based business.

The applicant, Carlos Ramos, told the board he owns the property and said the business is intended to “get me off the ground” until he can acquire commercial space. Ramos said he planned to run three employees and four trucks, generally operate Monday through Friday between about 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and that he does not bring debris from off-site jobs to the property. He also said he planned to install an 8-foot fence to screen equipment. Codes staff said their initial contact arose from a complaint about on-site burning; during that visit they discovered a possible business operation and advised the owner about burning restrictions.

Neighbors and nearby residents voiced safety and nuisance concerns. Tony Arnold said his primary worry was the potential for commercial-scale burning and smoke, which has caused community complaints in the past. Jason Richardson said smoke from burns had impacted nearby properties and noted the historic age and wood construction of a nearby house, calling any ongoing burn pile a fire risk.

After public comment and discussion, a board member moved to deny the request, asserting it was incompatible with the neighborhood because of the number of large vehicles, outdoor storage, noise and the potential for burning on the site, and saying a rezoning would be a more appropriate path for this scale of operation. The motion to deny passed in roll call (Yes to deny: Mike Curtis; Jerry Sartain; Renee Curtis; Patrick Hale; Zane Cantrell). Planning staff noted that the initial enforcement contact was for on-site burning and that they had not received evidence of ongoing burning complaints after advising the owner.

The denial means the applicant must either pursue a rezoning or relocate to a commercially zoned site to operate the business at the proposed scale. The board record cites concerns about neighborhood compatibility, vehicle storage, and outdoor debris handling.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Zoning Appeals - September 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Rutherford County’s Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to operate a major home-based tree service at 2079 Gee Road, finding the proposed number of vehicles, outdoor storage and burning practices incompatible with the residential neighborhood.","taxTitle","Rutherford County, Tennessee","taxId",4625,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":44,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6473102,"Board OKs accessory structure before principal residence at Lytle Creek Road with conditions",276,2727000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f&start=2727&end=3003","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f/thumbnail_2727000.jpg","/articles/6473102/Rutherford-County/Tennessee/Board-OKs-accessory-structure-before-principal-residence-at-Lytle-Creek-Road-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473102-746d0236c8ff08b445db49260e94307c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177222&Signature=Vg8eMc8mQhAGgDWYJ8iFp5hp8PwENf~V3O7etDyCW8cwFFXldR0BfrRTg0fBCUKrv03825rv1q3sYgVLbbIknoKbMexFXagpooMGGuS0rDJFfQWvDQpF2gaJnHWkEmac5RQLIvzcnPT3adVJ--p-eq2N4IYYMFmdUqqiUQzGLGlWRsdsJmUyyb5JhmZH9oVtVrGtebFyUksM~O1Y1BM3TgV-B8h8hDUUiXYL77teKd4AfVILlHnHHSp9sEwzJEexPDGHPQ4liYVdlLFaxLxe850Vs5TicwterwANFJFO~hzu7RCFSG47awBXLnt8A4NNPydNwbna3O8baMrDyYOvPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special exception for an accessory structure that was built before a principal residence on property at 4750 Lytle Creek Road.

Planning staff said the 12.2-acre RM-zoned site contains an unpermitted 40-by-80-foot (3,200-square-foot) metal storage building erected by the property owner and is the subject of code-enforcement action. The applicant told the board the structure will be used to store building supplies and personal items while the primary residence is constructed; the applicant stated plans to build the principal dwelling within two years.

Staff recommended approval with conditions consistent with the county’s rules for a noncommercial accessory structure: only one such noncommercial storage facility is permitted per property; the structure must meet allowable square footage and setback requirements; it may not be used for living quarters; it may not host commercial activities or store materials from off-site commercial businesses, including home-based businesses.

Clyde Brownfield, of Ellison Steel Engineering, said he was representing the property owner and that the construction of the storage building was a misunderstanding of sequence, and that the owner plans to build the house within two years. No public opposition was raised during the hearing.

A board motion to approve the special exception, with the recommended conditions, passed unanimously in roll call (Yes: Mike Curtis; Jerry Sartain; Renee Curtis; Patrick Hale; Zane Cantrell). The staff recommendation and conditions will govern the property and the approval is recorded as a special exception to be complied with by the owner.","Rutherford County BZA granted a special exception allowing a 3,200-square-foot storage building to remain while the owner constructs a principal residence within two years, subject to noncommercial-use conditions and compliance with setbacks.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6473107,"Rutherford County BZA approves one-day Can-Am UTV demonstration with limits after neighbor concerns",2563,157000,2720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f&start=157&end=2720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5760698-5987fa3ee74473d77530674d540e5a7f/thumbnail_157000.jpg","/articles/6473107/Rutherford-County/Tennessee/Rutherford-County-BZA-approves-one-day-Can-Am-UTV-demonstration-with-limits-after-neighbor-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473107-80d7f7231ad36f2841c09fe87d6f5699/orig.mp4?Expires=1771177222&Signature=PQ3JcTVuBzb~rMODddlyYKGGKvehVLSM1I7DiLjKyal6t8KXuptXM2Gx3Qm181G0gSqXt81nTyhfGmcqqMa-3FC2WlwyXF4XVTauqc5bhArwUbPGQ3EQMsHVOtSwgQ-vjtIqFSgm4m-mWPbvyNbz0OHI-810FDTZtDPEWG7J65TSkjEoGF7-xUO~KHb1TIQcBsXvEpBa56sNEHiX6DAiDKxyz-6qMRNyoFhQV18Ydr1L7dbzvdlqv-rsICfxL~Bd6yKkYD1isi5SpP7QEVmSPu655fzy05QlUkI9YUKils1mdk9knsksICi0O2hSKt1Ar4zah4BWQBgzNF-bz1wTOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 25 approved a one-day temporary special exception to allow a Can-Am utility terrain vehicle demonstration on property at 8490 Valley View Road, with conditions that limit the number of vehicles and require site restoration and mitigation measures.

The applicant, Hubert Rowland, requested the permit for demonstrations and static displays on Nov. 8, 2025. Planning staff described the application as a private, one-time outdoor event with estimated attendance between 250 and 350 people and temporary facilities including a 30-by-45 tent, bleachers, portable restrooms, trailers, a PA system, first-aid station and on-site parking. Staff recommended approval with conditions and emphasized any approval would be limited to this single event.

The board’s decision followed public comment from neighbors who raised safety and quality-of-life concerns. Bill McBroom, who said he lives directly across Valley View Road, told the board the connecting road is “a narrow road winding with no shoulder” and said frequent pedestrian and bicycle use could make an influx of traffic hazardous. Trey Smith, who said his family farm borders the subject property, urged the board to consider the long-term implications and asked whether approval would become recurring. Several neighbors opposed recurring events while other residents spoke in favor of allowing the single demonstration.

Applicant Hubert Rowland, who identified himself as working with Bombardier Recreational Products (parent of Can-Am) and said he helps with machine testing and consumer events, described the plan as “a 1 day event” and said the operation is “truly a 1 day demonstration of the newest current utility vehicle.” He told the board the event is free for local attendees and that invitations to industry and dealership contacts would be limited to keep crowd size within the estimate.

Staff said the application proposes on-site parking with an anticipated peak of 126 vehicles, traffic control personnel, ADA parking close to the entrance, a fenced demonstration course, water trucks for dust control, and post-event site restoration within 48 hours. Sound mitigation in the staff report included speaker orientation and volume limits. Staff also noted the applicant provided insurance and planned FAA-compliant drone photography. During questioning, the applicant said the demonstration would feature 14–20 machines active on course and additional static units for display.

Board members debated compatibility with the rural residential (RL) zoning and referenced the county’s temporary special-exception standards. One board member asked staff to clarify why the temporary nature of facilities was treated as a factor in compatibility; staff replied that temporary events without permanent construction are evaluated under the county’s temporary special-exception standards and seen as compatible when no permanent changes are proposed.

The board moved to approve the event “as laid out in the staff comments” and to limit active and static vehicles demonstrated to 20. The motion was approved in roll call 4–1 (Yes: Mike Curtis, Renee Curtis, Patrick Hale, Zane Cantrell; No: Jerry Sartain). The approval is limited to a single event and includes the staff conditions described in the staff report.

The board and staff clarified enforcement expectations: Planning/codes staff do not routinely monitor approved temporary events, and neighbors were urged to report any problems promptly so codes staff can follow up. The board chair reiterated that if neighbors raise problems, staff and codes would be notified for follow-up.

Details left unresolved at the hearing included a minor discrepancy in listed event hours (the application listed 1–6 p.m.; at one point board discussion referenced 1–5 p.m.). The motion as recorded referenced the event as a five-hour one-day permit; the staff report and application identify the date and the proposed 1–6 p.m. window. The board’s approval emphasized the one-time nature of the permission.","The Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a one-day temporary special exception for a Can-Am utility terrain vehicle demonstration at 8490 Valley View Road on Nov. 8, 2025, with conditions including a cap on demonstrated vehicles and staff requirements after residents raised safety, traffic and noise concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BZA denies major home-based tree-service request at Gee Road, citing neighborhood impact concerns

Board OKs accessory structure before principal residence at Lytle Creek Road with conditions

Rutherford County BZA approves one-day Can-Am UTV demonstration with limits after neighbor concerns