Gallatin zoning board denies conditional use permit for 1130 Hartsville Pike multi‑family plan

The Gallatin zoning board voted 3‑1 to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed multifamily development at 1130 Hartsville Pike at its meeting March 27.

The proposed plan would have placed up to 14 residences behind existing homes on the lot; staff recommended denial, citing potential safety, noise and visual impacts and a projected increase in traffic. Neighbors attending the meeting urged the board to reject the proposal, saying it would reduce privacy and property values.

Brad Hickman, staff planner, told the board that under section 15.06.040 of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance the board must find that a conditional use "is so designated, located and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected." Hickman said calculations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation manual show traffic from the site would increase “five fold” compared with current conditions and that staff believed the project “will be harmful to the desirability of the other properties in the area.” He told the board the department had received letters from residents voicing opposition and that planning staff recommended denial of the resolution.

Residents who spoke during the public comment and public hearing said the development would change the character of the single‑family neighborhood and create safety and traffic concerns. Kathy Bowersox, who said she lives at 155 Enoch Way, told the board she had been involved in the Enoch Hills subdivision “since the very first house” and said, "My biggest concern is multifaceted...we were led to believe when we purchased our home we were given the chance to look at what was around us and the zoning that was around us." Matt Chapman, 320 Hathaway Lane, said the visual impact and lights would remove his ability to enjoy his backyard and called the proposal "nothing but a land grab for money." Several other nearby residents raised similar concerns about privacy, light and traffic.

Andy Leith, who represented the applicant, said the units would be market‑rate rental units with brick construction and architectural elements, and that the developer intended to retain ownership rather than flip the property. Leith disputed staff's traffic assessment in practical terms, noting other nearby developments and saying the city's calculation projects an additional 107 trips per day; he compared that figure with estimated trips from potential single‑family development and said the difference would be small. He also said there would be a 25‑foot buffer on the subdivision side and additional buffering to reduce visual impacts.

Board discussion focused on whether the conditional use criteria in the zoning ordinance had been met. Commissioners were reminded repeatedly that zoning council had previously rezoned the property to R‑15 and that the question before the board was whether the conditional use criteria were satisfied. Assistant City Attorney Pasha Alexander asked that any motion state the ordinance criteria relied on. When the final motion to deny was made and put to a vote, the board recorded a 3‑1 denial, with members citing criteria A and B of the staff report as the basis for denial.

Because the property's underlying zoning permits single‑family development, speakers and staff noted that if the conditional use permit were denied the owner could pursue single‑family lots under R‑15 zoning; participants were told that detailed engineering, subdivision or site‑plan review would still be subject to planning department and planning commission review and that the public could attend those proceedings.

The board's denial ends the conditional use request for the proposed multifamily project at this stage; any subsequent subdivision or site plan would follow the city's planning process.