Planners approve site plan for Dollar General in Deason

In July, property owner Roger Smith and real estate agent Monte Turner asked for a variance so that a parcel could be subdivided for the store even though the store would tie into septic system field lines on the adjoining lot. Existing subdivision regulations prohibited a subdivision where the field lines for one lot would be on a different lot.

Planners say that rule was intended to prevent developers of residential subdivisions from submitting plans with a spaghetti-like tangle of septic system field lines which could create legal problems and disputes between neighbors down the road. They said the Dollar General case represented a different situation, in which there was a clear benefit to letting one lot tie into its neighboring lot's field lines. The planners granted a variance in the specific case of the Dollar General site, but said they also wanted to go back and change the field-line rule so that it only applied to residential subdivisions.

The motion to amend the subdivision regulations passed by voice vote Tuesday night. A public hearing on the change drew no comments on the actual change, although citizen Charles Cooke of Bell Buckle used the hearing as an opportunity to ask a procedural question about a subdivision project in the Bell Buckle area.

Meanwhile, after receiving its variance in July, the developers of the Dollar General store had the site re-zoned from residential to commercial and were ready Tuesday night to submit a site plan for approval. State planner Pat Schipani, who advises the planning commission, asked about fire hydrants at the site, saying he would like to see a hydrant near the store. But planning commission chairman Kennon Threet said there's nothing in the existing zoning rules requiring hydrants.

Threet, who is also a member of the Bedford County Utility District board, said that while there's a 10-inch line in front of the Dollar General store, much of the BCUD system is served by six-inch water lines, which don't have enough capacity to to provide water for fire protection. The so-called "hydrants" along those six-inch lines are actually blow-off valves, used by BCUD for flushing the lines. Threet's implication was that requiring fire hydrants in those areas would be meaningless.

Schipani asked whether the store would have a sprinkler system for fire protection, but real estate agent Monte Turner said no. Turner said sprinklers are required for buildings of 12,000 square feet or greater, but the store will only be 9,100 square feet.

Threet said the planners could do nothing more than recommend a hydrant be placed at the site. Planners approved the site plan by voice vote.

Accessory buildings

Planners deferred action for a month on a proposal to change the regulations governing stand-alone accessory structures. Current subdivision rules allow only one "primary structure" per lot -- if a property owner wants to build more than one house on a lot, they must have it divided into separate lots, so that each lot meets the existing size and setback requirements. But accessory buildings -- such as a garage, storage shed or even an apartment for a family member -- are allowed.

The current rules for accessory structures define them in terms of the primary structure on a lot, which means it's currently not allowed for someone with undeveloped property to build a shed or other non-agricultural accessory building if the property owner doesn't have immediate plans to build a house. Planners want to change the rules so that an accessory building can be placed on undeveloped property.

But there were differences of opinion over how tightly such undeveloped buildings could or should be regulated and deferred the issue for a month so that it could be studied further. Questions include whether or not kitchen or bathroom facilities might result in the accessory structure being considered a primary structure.

Appeal fee

Planners discussed the issue of the $250 application fee required to bring an item to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Some requests brought to the zoning appeals board are non-contentious, such as special exception applications. But the Board of Zoning Appeals, as its name suggests, is also the forum for property owners who wish to challenge a decision of the county zoning enforcer. Threet said a constituent asked him whether a property owner who wins such a challenge would have their $250 refunded.

Zoning Enforcer Kay Demonbren said that the board currently has the power to refund such fees if it chooses.

"I honestly did not know that," responded Threet.

But she said the $250 is intended to cover the costs of studying an appeal application and the cost of holding a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The board does not have a regular meeting schedule and meets only when it has an application to consider. Demonbren said Rutherford County does not refund such fees regardless of the outcome.

Since it was confirmed that the board has the power to refund fees, no further action was necessary.