Planning commission gives negative recommendation on Rutledge Lane rezoning request

The Lebanon Planning Commission on Monday gave a negative recommendation to city council on a proposal to amend the city's future land use plan and seek county rezoning from A1 to C2 for about 7.02 acres at 65 and 85 Rutledge Lane, a site the applicant said would host a permanent location for Bucket Supply Co.

Applicant Tanner Puckett, who said he lives at 720 Rocky Valley Road and operates Bucket Supply Co. with his wife, asked the commission to support changing the future land use designation so the business could remain in place. "We're just a young couple trying to provide a place that Lebanon families can enjoy," Puckett said, noting the business opened in 2023 and runs community events such as a pumpkin patch and live Christmas tree sales.

Staff read a written comment from Regina Santana and recommended denial of both the future land use amendment and the county rezoning. The staff statement said the property is inside Lebanon's growth boundary and that long‑term utility planning anticipates eventual connection to public sewer through annexation. Staff noted the currently proposed uses are primarily outdoor, seasonal and low‑intensity and "may potentially be accommodated through an approved subsurface sewage disposal system subject to approval by the applicable regulatory authority," but advised that approval should not be construed as a commitment by the city to extend sanitary sewer services. Staff recommended the commission deny the requested changes and instead suggested the property remain A1 with a planned unit development (PUD) overlay to limit agricultural‑commercial uses that would increase wastewater generation.

Puckett told commissioners he had documentation from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation indicating an approved six‑bedroom septic site and backup soils areas on the property, and that he and his wife are not developers but local business operators seeking a permanent site. He asked commissioners to consider community support and to allow the matter to move to city council and county commission hearings.

Commissioners and staff discussed options, including deferring the request to allow the applicant to pursue a PUD overlay — which staff cautioned is more stringent and would require engineered site plans and additional time and cost — or acting on the current request and allowing the county and city processes to proceed. Several commissioners offered to help the applicant liaise with city staff and council members.

An adjoining neighbor spoke in support of Puckett and his family business but opposed broad commercial development on the site, saying he would not support intensive uses such as a gas station or multi‑family complex. "I'm all in approval for him coming there," the neighbor said, adding he did not want the zoning to open the door to large commercial projects in the future.

A motion was made and seconded for a negative recommendation to city council consistent with staff recommendations; commissioners voted in favor and the negative recommendation passed. The staff report and commission discussion noted that a future annexation and sewer extension could be required if the site were intensively developed, and that property owners or future purchasers seeking different uses would need to pursue separate approvals.

Next steps: the staff report referenced scheduled City Council readings for a related ordinance with a first reading and public hearing on July 7 and a second reading on July 21. The negative recommendation from the planning commission will be transmitted to city council and the county commission as part of the review process.