Lancaster County BZA declines neighbors' appeal; Nunn home-occupation permit remains in place

At its meeting, the Lancaster County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to leave in place a home-occupation permit issued to George Nunn after neighbors David and Tammy Boron appealed the permit's issuance.

The appeal arose from complaints that the Nunns’ business at 7965 Green Pond Road (listed in public materials as Restoration Golfware LLC) generated frequent commercial deliveries that damaged a shared private easement and created safety risks for neighbors and their animals. Tammy Boron, of 7940 Green Pond Road, told the board she and her husband moved to the area to keep horses and cited photos, a veterinarian report and text messages in the record. She said, according to materials she provided, the Nunns received roughly 21 deliveries per week and estimated about 1,008 deliveries per year; she submitted camera footage, photographs and other documentation to support that claim. David Boron added that gate and easement camera logs and date‑and‑time entries in their packet show many deliveries directly to 7965 Green Pond Road.

Why it matters: neighbors said the volume and character of traffic are incompatible with a rural residential neighborhood and argued that commercial traffic using a private easement was outside the scope of a home occupation. Staff and multiple board members discussed deed and plat language showing a recorded 30‑foot shared easement (15 feet on each property) and noted that private parties are generally responsible for maintaining such drives. Staff’s presentation summarized the administrative timeline (complaint receipt, site visit, the Nunns’ application and eventual issuance of a $75 home-occupation permit) and concluded staff did not favor granting the Borons’ appeal.

What happened at the meeting: after staff and public comment, the board took up a motion to reverse the permit. The motion to reverse the permit was made and seconded (the audio/transcript record identifies the makers at the dais as, verbatim, 'mister Baylor' and 'mister Bowman' when announced). After discussion the motion failed and the chair announced that the permit will remain in place; staff will prepare a formal order and issue it within 30 days. The transcript record does not provide a detailed roll‑call tally for the permit-reversal vote.

Evidence and competing claims: the Borons presented camera logs, photos, a veterinarian’s report, text messages and parcel‑delivery counts in their packet. Attorney Emily Brown, representing the Nunns, argued the relevant Lancaster County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines a home occupation as typically small and largely invisible from road frontage and stressed that the principal question is whether the operation’s location and traffic are consistent with the UDO’s standards. George Nunn spoke briefly and declined to address all allegations, noting the timing of the appeal in the record.

What’s next: staff will prepare and issue the formal order documenting the board’s decision to the interested parties within 30 days. The permit remains effective unless future enforcement action or another appeal occurs.