Planning commission recommends zoning-resolution changes after court ruling to clarify BZA authority

The Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission voted to recommend to the county commission a set of amendments to the county zoning resolution intended to clarify the powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals after a recent chancery court ruling called into question whether the 1998 resolution expressly authorized BZA review of certain use determinations. The motion to recommend the amendments passed on a voice vote with one commissioner recorded in opposition.

County legal counsel explained that East Tennessee Land Development had sued to challenge a use determination made by the zoning officer and argued the BZA lacked authority under the 1998 resolution to decide the appeal. "The pleadings are closed," counsel said of one motion in the court case, summing up the procedural posture as the parties move toward a November trial date. He told commissioners that rather than wait on further appellate decisions, he drafted amendments to address the court’s concerns and to modernize the resolution, including clearer notice requirements and updated references to the building department.

The draft amendments seek to do three things: make explicit the BZA’s authority to hear and decide appeals and preserve other powers that might otherwise be ambiguous; spell out notice and timing requirements; and clarify the zoning officer’s role in making initial determinations about whether a use is not permitted. "If this passes in the county commission, written notification will be required to everybody, to the person appealing and to the person whose use is being appealed," counsel said during the presentation.

Commissioners debated the proper allocation of initial decisionmaking authority. Several members said they preferred that the five-member BZA — not an individual zoning officer — be the body to resolve whether a use is permitted. "I would much rather see a body of five people in the board of zoning appeals make that determination on what is a permitted use rather than one individual," one commission member said, arguing that quasi‑judicial decisions should rest with the appeal body.

Counsel and others pushed back that, in practice, the zoning officer typically makes an "initial determination" when residents or property owners call for guidance, and that appeal to the BZA remains available. To address that concern the commission adopted a drafting change in which the resolution language would clarify that the zoning officer may determine when a use is "not permitted" while preserving the BZA’s authority to adjudicate appeals.

The resolution packet also notes reliance on state statutory provisions cited by counsel in the discussion. Counsel said he added a new catch‑all paragraph so the BZA will retain all other powers described elsewhere in the zoning resolution should any specific power be overlooked in redrafting. Commissioners asked counsel to prepare a clean, final version of the amended resolution for the record and for transmittal to the county commission and to confirm required notice periods under state law.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the municipal planning commissions and then to the Jefferson County Commission for final consideration; the county attorney will provide the clean, signed draft for transmittal and will confirm statutory notice timing.