East Ridge zoning board dismisses school-bus parking variance for lack of jurisdiction

The East Ridge Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 13 dismissed without prejudice an application asking to allow multiple school buses to be stored at a single-family property, finding the request sought a change in property use beyond the board's authority.

Chair Steven Leach told the board that the application—which listed properties on Arden Trail and was presented on behalf of homeowner Tonya Goins Floyd by attorney Buddy Presley—appeared to request relief that would amount to allowing a commercial operation within an R-1 single-family zone. “A variance may not be granted to allow a change in use of the property,” Leach said while explaining how the zoning ordinance and state law limit the board’s powers.

The board’s decision follows extended discussion with city staff and legal counsel about the East Ridge municipal zoning code. City staff identified the specific provision cited by the applicant as Article 6, Section 105 (storage and parking of trailers and commercial vehicles), which the staff summarized as limiting commercial vehicles parked at single-family residences to one vehicle not exceeding 1.5 tons rated capacity. City counsel advised that the request was effectively a use variance—asking the board to permit a commercial use in an R-1 district—and that authority to change allowed uses or rezone property rests with the planning commission and East Ridge City Council, not the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The applicant, identified in the hearing as Tonya Goins Floyd, told the board she and her family have parked school buses at two adjacent Arden Trail properties since the 1990s and that the county contracts require access to buses for emergency response. Floyd said the number of buses visible in historical aerial imagery and county GIS increased over time, and she said the property had six buses in 2024. “We’ve been there 20 plus years,” Floyd said.

Several neighbors spoke in support, telling the board they do not object to the buses parked at the Floyd property and that the company provides contracted school transportation and community support. A city staff member said the matter originated from a citizen complaint and that code enforcement acts on complaints and other discoveries.

After discussion, a board member moved that the panel lacked jurisdiction to hear the request as presented; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board’s action was recorded as a dismissal without prejudice: it did not rule on the merits of granting a variance and did not impose new enforcement at the hearing. The board advised the applicant that the proper remedies are to pursue a zoning change or a city ordinance amendment—beginning with staff and the regional planning agency or planning commission and proceeding to city council if a map amendment or ordinance change is desired.

The board’s minutes and the hearing record note that the appeals board’s role is to consider variances tied to hardships related to a property’s physical conditions (for example, lot shape or topography) and not to perform legislative zoning changes that expand allowed uses in a district. The city attorney reiterated that finding no jurisdiction in this forum does not prevent the applicant from seeking rezoning through the appropriate legislative channels or from pursuing other remedies off this record.

The board did not vote on any alternative relief, and the dismissal leaves any enforcement or subsequent application for rezoning to city staff and the planning process.