Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates subdivision request on Hillsborough Highway; motion to deny fails after voice vote
Summary
Nicholas Northcutt represented a property owner seeking a special‑question variance to subdivide a 6‑acre parcel on Hillsborough Highway into four lots. Neighbors and board members questioned compatibility and the absence of a property‑specific hardship; a motion to deny was made but did not pass on a voice vote, per the transcript.
Nicholas Northcutt of Northcutt Surveying told the Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 16 that his client, Mr. Umbarger, purchased a 6‑acre parcel on Hillsborough Highway and wants to subdivide it into four lots as a minor subdivision. Northcutt said the site is served by a 4‑inch water line, the highway department found driveway access acceptable, soil work shows each lot will ‘perk,’ and the road measures about 18–19 feet across, which he described as adequate for the proposed lots.
Board members and staff walked through the county’s special‑question criteria and variance standards, reading provisions in Article 10 of the zoning resolution and referring to Tennessee Code section 13‑7‑109. Staff emphasized that variances are intended for exceptional physical conditions and that mere financial loss or development potential is not a proper hardship for a variance.
Neighbors opposed the subdivision during public comment. Wanda Wells, who said she owns roughly 30–31 acres adjacent to the parcel, asked that the property remain a single lot. Another nearby resident, identified in the transcript as Demetrius, said the area should stay in agricultural use and expressed concern about new homes bringing pesticide and fertilizer conflicts.
During deliberations a board member moved to deny the special‑question variance on the grounds that the application did not meet several criteria, including compatibility with surrounding uses, access/infrastructure and preservation of agricultural character. The motion was seconded and a voice vote was taken. After soliciting ayes and nays the chair said, “it fails,” and the transcript records no roll‑call tally. The board did not record an explicit final approval of the variance in the transcript.
The discussion centered on whether the parcel shows the property‑specific hardship required by the standards and whether the proposed lot sizes would be compatible with adjacent properties within roughly a quarter‑mile. The staff reading of the ordinance highlighted that variances should be granted only where special circumstances do not apply generally in the district and that there must be a deprivation of reasonable use of the land beyond mere diminution in value.
The board moved on to the next agenda item after the vote. The transcript does not show a subsequent formal action that approved the variance application or clear language that the application was granted; it records only the failed motion to deny following the voice vote.
