BZA splits on A‑1 five‑acre variances: three denied, one tabled, two approved with conditions

The Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 31 considered several related variance requests that sought exceptions to a new five‑acre minimum in the A‑1 agricultural zoning district. The board denied three variance requests tied to Finney family parcels, tabled a request from John Hodge, and approved two variances with conditions for properties on Dean Shop Road and Gross Road.

The variances stem from a rezoning and moratorium process this spring: the board and county commission adopted a zoning change and an associated moratorium that, according to meeting remarks, became effective March 11. The rezoning introduced a five‑acre minimum in A‑1; the county’s zoning resolution is referred to in the record as "resolution numbered 20 25 dash o 5," and a county commission action placing a moratorium was cited as "resolution 20 25 0 3." Several applicants said they began surveying and soil testing before the moratorium and argued that work already in progress should be grandfathered.

Attorney and applicant representative Nicholas Northcott spoke for multiple landowners (the Finneys and related heirs), explaining that the owners began surveys and soil work months before the code change and that soil scientists and TDEC approvals take months. "The surveyor alone can be backed out anywhere from 6 to 8 (weeks) ... Getting something back from TDEC typically takes around anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks," Northcott told the board, adding that the moratorium and code change left his clients "caught in the crosshair." He said the Finney parcels are each roughly 9.01 acres and that the owners sought to create minor subdivisions (four or fewer lots) as allowed under Coffee County subdivision regulations.

Multiple residents and neighbors spoke during public comment. Lewis Swift urged the board to study environmental impacts and warned that smaller lots can strain septic systems; Todd Ray and other nearby property owners said the Baines Road area lacks water infrastructure and that approving variances could set a precedent. Colleen Fultz, one of the heirs, said the family has owned and worked the land for decades and urged the board to allow them to sell parcels before heirs die.

After discussion, the board considered the Finney parcels first and ultimately voted to deny the variance requests under the variance standards cited in the packet (the board referenced standards labeled D2 and D3 during deliberations). The record shows the board took separate votes for the Finney parcels and recorded motions to deny each. The board cited the recent county action and the standards for variance approval in explaining the denials.

Separately, a request from John Hodge for a secondary residence on a 9.2‑acre parcel on Cathy Ridge Road was tabled. Hodge told the board his existing front house is dilapidated and said he bought a secondary home to place on the property before the new rule was adopted. Board members and staff concluded Hodge may be able to place a second residence on the existing lot via codes staff guidance (county staff noted two houses on one driveway is allowed under some circumstances) and asked Hodge to consult planning/codes staff; the board voted to table the matter and indicated that if he must return to the BZA, staff would consider waiving an additional fee.

The board approved a variance for 477 Dean Shop Road (Hill) with conditions after finding the applicant had begun the process before the moratorium and that the requested flag/lot configuration met the practical‑hardship considerations the board uses for variances. Board members made approval conditional on demonstrated site suitability, specifically passing a soil/percolation test and meeting other building and code requirements, including any necessary water access. The motion to approve was made by Tim Morris and seconded by Anna K.; the measure passed 5‑0.

A variance for 460 Gross Road (Thorpe) was also approved 5‑0 after the board heard that the owner purchased the parcel at auction in January and had begun soils work in February and March. The applicant presented completed documentation of soil work and a 50‑foot access easement; members said that timing and completed filings were material to granting relief.

Board members and staff acknowledged the wider policy question remains unresolved: planning staff and the commission are working to clarify the county's minor‑subdivision criteria, and the board encouraged affected property owners to attend an upcoming planning commission meeting that will consider more specific guidance for minor subdivisions.