Residents oppose construction-use special exception at New Hope Road; board questions compliance with 2017 BZA ruling

Dozens of residents and property owners told the Sumner County Board of Zoning Appeals they oppose permitting construction-sales-and-services activity and a proposed 10,000-square-foot storage building at 2340 New Hope Road, a 12.05-acre parcel owned by Charles Roberts that lies in the county floodplain.

Staff opened the item by summarizing a long regulatory history. Planning staff told the board the property had multiple prior applications dating to at least 2017, including a denied application to store commercial equipment, subsequent approvals and a building permit granted around 2019–2020 for a 10,000-square-foot pole barn that was not built. Staff said those earlier approvals have lapsed after five years and that the county adopted a substantial zoning rewrite in 2020 that changed applicable rules. Staff asked the board two questions: whether the property’s current use and proposed building comport with the BZA’s October 12, 2017 decision, and whether a building permit may be issued at this time or if additional zoning approvals or a special exception are required.

Applicant Charles Roberts said he owns Earthworks Incorporated, that he does not intend to bring his construction business office to the site and that he wants to build a storage building to house “race cars, boats, power tools and equipment” currently stored at his commercial site. Roberts said he lives adjacent to the parcel, that he has worked with county staff and that he supplied a flood-elevation certificate for the proposed building site. His statement to the board included: “I simply wanna build a building to put all my toys in.”

Residents and the homeowners association presented repeated objections. Richard Waltz said, “This place has been a nuisance ever since he's owned it. It's noisy. It's dirty. There's traffic coming and going there all the time.” Holly Patterson, HOA president, described repeated complaints about late-night loud music, dirt-bike activity, dump trucks and large soil mounds next to the creek; she asked whether the fill material had been tested and whether oil, grease or other contaminants from stored equipment could be entering the water.

Other speakers described frequent dump-truck traffic, visible mounds of fill adjacent to the creek, repeated flooding of nearby yards and barns, and concerns that continued activity would lower property values and degrade the rural character. Multiple residents challenged the sufficiency of any engineering or FEMA approvals cited by the applicant and asked the county to provide documentation. One resident raised bridge safety concerns for heavy equipment crossing a private bridge at the site.

During board discussion, a motion was made and seconded to find that current activity on the property is not in keeping with the BZA’s 2017 action. The transcript records the motion and a second and shows staff continuing to seek a clear direction from the board. Staff explicitly told the board there was no complete special-exception application before the BZA at the hearing and recommended against denying an application that had not yet been filed; staff also noted that if a new application is filed, the board must rule based on a complete application and supporting material evidence.

The public hearing included repeated requests from residents for traffic studies, drainage/engineering analyses, and copies of any FEMA or other agency approvals. Staff told the board the property is within the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE), that earlier permits have lapsed, and that county zoning rules would apply to future filings. The transcript does not include a final vote on the motion recorded in the meeting minutes excerpt provided; staff sought clarification from the board on how to proceed and whether the board wished to answer the two questions presented.

The matter remains open pending board direction or the filing of a formal special-exception or zoning-compliance application. Residents indicated they would pursue appeals and that they expect the board and staff to require material evidence such as drainage reports, traffic studies and documentation of any FEMA certifications before any permit is issued.