Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rezones parcel off East Lincoln Street to C‑3 despite neighbor opposition
Summary
After public comment from a fifth‑generation neighbor, the board amended a zoning ordinance to rezone Lot 38 (Southern Harmony Estates) from R‑1 to C‑3 on first reading, citing wetlands, buffers and proximity to commercial land; the first reading passed 4–2.
The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved the first reading of Ordinance 1682 to rezone Lot 38 of Southern Harmony Estates from low‑density residential (R‑1) to neighborhood commercial (C‑3) by a 4–2 vote, following public comment from neighbors and a presentation by the applicant's representative.
Resident Deborah Truen urged the board to keep the parcel as R‑1, saying she grew up nearby, that the road (Cobb Road) is narrow and already sees heavy truck traffic, and that commercial uses would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Planning staff and the applicant's representative, Nicholas Northcutt of Northcutt Surveying, said the lot is separated from the Cobb Road houses by a large drainage easement, wetlands and buffers and that the portion proposed for rezoning is tucked near the Pepsi plant and Old Manchester Highway, limiting direct neighborhood impacts. Northcutt said initial discussion included multifamily uses but that much of the parcel is physically constrained by buffers and wetland areas.
Board members questioned how many dwelling units would be physically feasible (the applicant said he did not have exact unit counts), drainage impacts and why the item was described as C‑2 in some papers; staff confirmed the correct target zoning is C‑3 and the board moved to amend the ordinance text before voting. Planning staff reminded members that rezoning alone does not approve a development plan — site plans and building permits, including stormwater and traffic review, would return to the planning commission for technical review.
The ordinance amendment and first reading carried 4–2. The board recorded that further site‑level review will be required if the property owner seeks to develop the site.
