Planning Commission approves accessory dwelling unit at 4201 Higdon Drive; neighbor raises Airbnb concern

The Rutherford County Planning Commission approved a special-exception to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a 0.46-acre property at 4201 Higdon Drive, with commissioners voting yes on the motion after a public hearing and staff discussion about septic setbacks and building permits.

Staff presented Application 2025-5, describing the lot as 0.46 acre in the RM zone and the proposed ADU as approximately 590 square feet; the applicant told the commission she may reduce the ADU to about 400 square feet for cost reasons. Staff said the request met criteria for an ADU except that county rules require a one‑acre minimum for by‑right ADUs in that zone, so a special exception was required. Staff also noted the driveway would be extended and that the site is served by an existing septic system.

A person at the podium who identified herself as Pamela Martin spoke as the applicant. She said the ADU would be stick-built on a concrete pad and that the unit would house a family member or guest while she remains in the principal residence. Pamela Martin said her contractor and others had looked at the septic layout; she provided a septic‑system layout to staff at the meeting.

During the public hearing, neighbor Juanita Jones asked whether the ADU would be used as an Airbnb, saying that short-term rentals would “change the whole neighborhood.” Jones also said such use “would not be allowed.”

Planning staff advised the applicant that, if approved, building codes staff would verify setbacks from property lines and the septic system and that a building permit would be required before construction. In response to a staff prompt, a building‑codes representative said, “We will do that at Building Codes,” describing the department’s role in verifying system setbacks prior to permit issuance.

After the public hearing closed, a motion to approve the special exception carried by roll call: Mike Curtis, Amber Brown, Jerry Sartain, Gary Farley, Renee Curtis and Zane Cantrell voting yes. The commission did not place conditions in the motion beyond the standard requirement that permits and setback verification occur during the permitting process.

Staff packet materials listed the applicant as "Ms. Higdon" for this item; the person who spoke at the podium identified herself as Pamela Martin. The record does not resolve whether Pamela Martin is Ms. Higdon or a representative; the commission proceeded based on the materials and the applicant’s statements at the hearing. Building‑permit review and final setback verification remain prerequisites to construction under county rules.