Wilson County board denies Airbnb appeal for property accessed across neighbors’ private drive

The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals denied an application to use a property on Sanderlesville Ferry Road as a short‑term rental, reasoning that the house’s only practical access runs over a private driveway and a recorded easement that would make short‑term guests pass through neighbors’ yards.

Staff told the board the applicant, Kevin Flemons, had filed a business plan and that the property met acreage requirements for an Airbnb appeal, recommending approval conditioned on attaching the business plan and providing emergency contact information to county offices. Flemons told the board the home is a three‑bedroom, three‑bath house and said he would accept standard quiet‑hours restrictions.

Several neighbors testified in opposition, saying the driveway is privately used by roughly 10 households and that renters would have to pass through or adjacent to private yards. “You literally have to drive through the middle of my yard,” said neighbor Natalie Korb, who told the board she and family members share the drive and that a special‑needs child uses the yard where guests would pass. Sherry Claude Felcher, who said she has lived on the private drive for 27 years, told the board she bought her home because it provided privacy.

County Commissioner Lauren Breeze (District 18) asked the county attorney and staff whether approving an Airbnb at the end of a private drive could create liability or a precedent; staff said private‑drive maintenance and access disputes are civil matters among neighbors and that the board’s authority is limited to zoning appeals. Several board members said the combination of a private drive easement and short‑term rental use materially changed the balance of the case compared with other short‑term rentals the board hears.

“Every time an Airbnb comes in somebody’s neighborhood, those residents don’t want it in their neighborhood,” a board member said, “but this is a game changer” because the property is reached by an easement across private lots. After deliberation, the board moved to deny the application on the basis of testimony and the property’s access arrangement. The motion passed 4–1.

Chair closed the hearing and reminded the public that appeals of the board’s decision may be filed in chancery court.

What happens next: The applicant may appeal the decision to chancery court. The board’s denial was recorded as the final action at the hearing; no conditions or follow‑up tasks were specified by the board.