The Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday amended its zoning resolution to define a “special question” as synonymous with a variance under Tennessee law and removed a clause that would have allowed the board to consider whether a minor subdivision would “negatively affect neighboring property values.”

The change establishes that, for purposes of administering the county zoning resolution, “a special question shall be construed as synonymous with variance as controlled by section 13-7-109, Tennessee Code Annotated,” language read into the record by Amanda, staff member. That definition was added along with a new subsection (letter e) to Section 10.8 governing standards for granting special-question variances for minor subdivisions in the A-1 district.

The amendment matters because it clarifies the legal basis the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will use when answering special questions and sets standards for minor subdivisions — defined in the revised language as the division of land into four or fewer parcels under five acres in the A-1 district. Those standards, as read aloud during the meeting, include lot-size and dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding density and land-use plans, access and infrastructure provisions, limits on adverse impacts (with a struck clause on property values), preservation of rural or agricultural character where applicable, and plat approval requirements.

Amanda, staff member, read the proposed standards to the board. The text presented to the board specified: proposed lots must meet frontage, width and setback requirements unless otherwise granted; subdivisions must be compatible with the character and density of surrounding properties and not create development patterns inconsistent with the adopted land-use plan; all lots must have direct access to a public street or improved private drive and adequate utilities and drainage; and minor subdivisions must comply with applicable regulations and platting rules.

Board member Randy moved to remove subsection 4(c) — the clause that would have allowed the BZA to consider whether a proposed subdivision would “negatively affect neighboring property values.” Board member Anastasia seconded the motion. The board voted by voice vote to strike 4(c); the transcript records the motion as carried.

Board member Laura later moved to remove a separate provision — the proposed item 6 that would have made review by the Planning Commission a standard “if applicable” prior to final action. The board voted by voice vote to delete that paragraph; after the change the numbering was adjusted so that plat/approval language followed the other substantive standards.

During discussion, several board members and staff said the language should be explicit that the standards apply to minor subdivisions only and cautioned against provisions that would require the board to perform property-value appraisals. Kirk, staff member, and other board members noted that traffic, stormwater and infrastructure verification would be addressed through planning or subdivision review where required, and that a proposed special-question approval would not substitute for required plat approval.

Other business: a site-plan review for Lot 10 on Joint Park Boulevard, applicant Eric Dill, was taken off the agenda at the applicant’s request and deferred. Board members briefly discussed city changes to building-fee valuation (noting a change presented in the city’s materials from $75 per square foot to $125 per square foot for valuation), and flagged an impact fee the city adopted that the county cannot impose; members agreed to review those fee changes and discuss at a future meeting.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to strike 4(c) (remove “negatively affect neighboring property values” from the “no adverse impact” standard): mover — Randy, second — Anastasia; outcome — motion carried by voice vote (stricken).
- Motion to remove proposed paragraph 6 (review by Planning Commission “if applicable” prior to final action): mover — Laura; second — not specified on the record; outcome — motion carried by voice vote (paragraph removed; subsequent renumbering applied).
- Site-plan review for Lot 10 (Joint Park Boulevard, applicant Eric Dill): applicant requested deferral; outcome — deferred/postponed at applicant’s request.
- Motion to adjourn: mover — Sammy Morton; second — Randy; outcome — carried.

The board indicated the amended language and the checklist will be finalized in the printed document to be approved by the county attorney; members asked staff to ensure consistent numbering and placement of the new definitions (in the definitions section and by adding letter e to Section 10.8). The board did not set a numeric limit on how often a property owner may seek a special-question variance; members and staff said that would be difficult to legislate and that the BZA should retain discretion on individual cases.

A revised printed copy reflecting these edits will be circulated to members for the record; the board did not adopt any further regulatory changes at the meeting and postponed detailed review of the city’s fee changes to a future session.