BZA approves one‑sided digital billboard at Elm Hill Pike with no light trespass to adjacent residential zoning

The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 approved a variance allowing a one‑sided digital billboard along Interstate‑40 frontage at 2975 Elm Hill Pike, subject to conditions that the sign face away from adjacent residentially zoned parcels and that no light trespass be directed onto those parcels.

Staff introduced case 2025‑88, describing the subject site in the IWD (industrial) zoning district along Elm Hill Pike. The code permits digital signage in IWD subject to minimum separation distances from residentially zoned properties; staff’s presentation identified several nearby R‑10 parcels, with a variety of ownership types in the wider buffer.

John Michael, attorney for Lamar Advertising, told the board the applicant sought variances from two portions of the sign regulations, including the 500‑foot placement limit and a distance calculation tied to electronic billboards. Michael said his exhibits identified roughly 33 lots that would fall within the computed distance but asserted 31 of those lots are owned by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority and that none currently contain residences. He argued the ownership and current nonresidential uses (airport and cemetery parcels) create a peculiarity supporting a variance.

A nearby property owner, John Ditto, testified in opposition, saying he objects to digital billboards on aesthetic grounds. Board members discussed prior billboard cases and whether additional technical documentation—such as a light‑spill or “flare” map—would be appropriate. Several members said the applicant’s willingness to orient the digital face toward the interstate and to commit to light‑mitigation technology reduced their concerns.

During deliberations, the board amended the motion to require the billboard be one‑sided (digital on the interstate side) and to prohibit any light trespass onto adjacent R‑10 parcels. The applicant’s counsel agreed to withdraw the proposed static face that would front Elm Hill Pike and to proceed with the single digital face oriented toward the highway. The board then voted; the chair announced the motion passed 5–1.

The board record cites code sections and a state variance standard raised by the applicant: counsel referenced Metro code sections cited in the applicant memorandum (17‑32‑150(b)(8) and 17‑32‑050(g)(2) as listed in the packet) and referred to state variance law in oral argument. The applicant also stated the airport authority was notified and did not submit opposition in advance.