Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Board of Zoning Appeals they fear a mobile‑home park is being created on A‑1 land
Summary
Two Trousdale County residents said a landowner is placing multiple rental mobile homes on A‑1–zoned parcels without rezoning or notice; county staff said building permits had been issued for single homes on separate parcels and that mobile‑home parks require a special‑exception process and planning‑commission review.
Carolyn Wright and James Odom told the Trousdale County Board of Zoning Appeals that a neighbor appears to be placing multiple rental trailers on A‑1–zoned land without rezoning or notifying adjacent property owners.
Wright, who identified herself as a local resident, said she and other neighbors recorded deed restrictions intended to prevent a mobile‑home park and that “this county allows this man to violate zoning.” She said the property owner, identified in testimony as Mr. Waller, already had two trailers on the parcel, that white stakes mark additional spaces, and that a newly cut driveway across from her home suggested more trailers would be added.
The matter matters because rezoning and notice to neighbors can affect property values and community expectations. James Odom, who said he owns property adjacent to Wright’s, told the board he looked up parcel records and said the tract in question appears to be used like a mobile‑home park; he asked the board to consider whether the land should be rezoned so neighbors would have a public forum to weigh in.
The board chair responded that rezoning requests go before the planning and zoning commission, not the Board of Zoning Appeals, and noted the planning commission was scheduled to meet after the board. A county staff member explained permitting rules to the assembled residents, saying a building permit may be issued for a single mobile home placed on a parcel under the county ordinance and that that circumstance does not, by itself, constitute a mobile‑home park.
County staff advised residents to contact their county commissioners if they want elected officials to review whether existing ordinances and enforcement match community expectations. The board did not take formal action on the complaint during the meeting; staff told residents that if more than one mobile home is to be placed on a single parcel or if a developer seeks to establish a mobile‑home park, that would require a special‑exception application to the Board of Zoning Appeals followed by planning‑commission review of a site plan.
No vote was taken on rezoning or enforcement at the meeting. The planning and zoning commission, which handles rezoning requests, was noted as the next forum for formal review.
