Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies rezoning request after neighbors, commissioners raise spot-zoning concerns
Summary
Rutherford County planning commissioners denied a request to rezone about 1.9 acres on Joe Brown Road from residential to commercial after staff described prior unpermitted business activity and neighbors warned of truck traffic and dust.
The Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission on Nov. 10 denied a request to rezone roughly 1.9 acres on Joe Brown Road from residential medium-density to commercial services after commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about spot zoning, traffic and site readiness.
Doug DeMasi, planning staff, told the commission that the application stemmed from a zoning-enforcement complaint. "An investigation confirmed that there was indeed a business being operated on the site," DeMasi said, and staff provided a concept plan showing storage containers and parking areas for employees and work vehicles. DeMasi said the property would require engineered site plans, landscape buffers and other site improvements if rezoned.
The applicant, Carlos De Alcerto, told the commission he bought the parcel believing it had “no restrictions” and was using it only to park company trucks. "I was not doing something illegal," he said, adding that he cleaned up vehicles and materials after being notified by enforcement. De Alcerto said he would comply with any required site improvements.
Neighbors said the small, narrow Joe Brown Road cannot reliably accommodate large construction trucks. Dave Hedlund, who said he lives across Polythicket Road, warned of vehicle conflicts and dust and said the area ‘‘is very narrow’’ with no shoulders. Samira Delmorel, another nearby resident, said she was concerned about heavy trucks and impacts to children and pets.
Commissioners debated whether the application would set a precedent for spot zoning in an otherwise residential corridor. One commissioner suggested a planned unit development (PUD) with specific restrictions could be a more appropriate path than a blanket rezoning.
The commission moved to deny the rezoning; the motion carried. Commissioners cited the predominately residential character of the surrounding lots, the narrow road and the absence of a soil/septic site as reasons for denial. Staff noted the applicant could pursue a PUD or a tailored plan-development application if he wished to limit permitted uses.
Outcome: Rezoning (REZ 25026) — denied. Next steps: the applicant may reapply with a PUD or other tailored application; the denial will be included in materials forwarded to the county commission.
