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

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.