Chattanooga Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – August 5, 2026

The Chattanooga Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on August 5, 2026, beginning at 14:01:12 UTC. All nine board members were present, so a majority of five was required for motions. The chair's opening instructions noted that denied applicants must wait 12 months to reapply and that appeals are made to Chancellor Court. The board received staff training on the legal framework for special exceptions, approved a rear setback variance on Autry Street, denied a setback variance on Donna Lane, and handled routine business.

Consent Calendar

• The board approved the previous meeting minutes by voice vote.
• A pending case was withdrawn without prejudice by a motion and second, clearing old business and agenda revisions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• For BZA 2641 (2402 Autry Street), no public speakers appeared.
• For BZA 2642 (2872 Donna Lane), written comments were received from Linda Reynolds, Jane Webb, and Kathy Dunn. The comments raised concerns about the narrowness and steepness of Donna Lane, stormwater runoff, and traffic safety.
• Jane Webb of 3201 Mission Terrace, a neighbor across from the Donna Lane property, testified in person. She said the small, steep, triangular lot seemed unsuitable for a home and expressed concerns about construction vehicles blocking Clearview Avenue and emergency access. She noted that neighbors would welcome a new neighbor but were concerned about the size and construction process. The chair responded that the board cannot prohibit the owner from building on the property; the board could only consider the requested setback reduction.

Discussion Items

Staff Training on Special Exceptions

• Staff presented the legal authority for BZAs, including Tennessee code and the Chattanooga Zoning Ordinance. A special exception is not a rezoning; the board cannot change zoning districts, rewrite the ordinance, approve prohibited uses, or ignore ordinance standards.
• The board's three approval criteria are: (1) the proposed exception will not endanger public health, safety, or welfare; (2) it is compatible with adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity; and (3) it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the code and adopted city land use policies.
• Staff emphasized the difference between evidence and opinion: the question is not whether a use is popular, but whether the applicant has shown it can operate without unreasonable adverse impacts.
• The board discussed the use of conditions of approval, including buffer increases and operational limits. Staff advised against tying approval to a specific site plan because later technical revisions would require another approval; conditions should instead address the use's appropriateness. Board Member Manual asked how the board could assess buffering without a site plan, and staff said the board can impose conditions such as a larger buffer and that detailed site plan review occurs later in the permitting process.
• The board requested that the drive-through design standards from the zoning ordinance be distributed to all members.
• Cassie was introduced as the new zoning manager on the land use development team.

BZA 2641 – 2402 Autry Street

• Applicant Jimmy Obando requested a variance to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 20.75 feet on a lot zoned RN-1-5 (Residential Neighborhood, Single-Family), Council District 9. The hardship cited was lot shape and size. The property's shape differs from typical rectangular lots, and the applicant proposed a 1,134-square-foot house. No public opposition was offered.

BZA 2642 – 2872 Donna Lane

• Applicant Edward Yates requested a variance to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 6 feet and the corner-side setback from 15 feet to 6 feet on a 3,232-square-foot triangular lot zoned RN-1-6. The lot is bordered by Clearview Avenue, Donna Lane, and an unopened right-of-way, has slopes greater than 25 percent, and includes a utility easement. Yates said that without the variance he could build only a 17-by-17-foot structure and that he hoped to build a small two- or three-story home, manage drainage, and improve the property.
• Board discussion was divided. Members Brock and Betbees emphasized the applicant's thoughtful presentations, potential drainage improvements, and the benefit to the neighborhood. Members Manuel, Moore, and others argued the property was a speculative 'scrap lot' with inherent limitations and that the variance would be incompatible with neighboring uses and long-term character. The chair also reminded the applicant to record the deed confirming his tax-sale purchase and to exchange contact information with neighbor Jane Webb.

Key Outcomes

• BZA 2641: Approved the rear setback variance from 25 feet to 20.75 feet, citing the hardship of lot shape. Vote: 9-0.
• BZA 2642: Denied the requested front setback variance (25 to 6 feet) and corner-side setback variance (15 to 6 feet), based on incompatibility with neighboring uses, long-term character, and adverse impacts. Vote: 6-3.
• The board directed staff to provide drive-through standards to all members.
• The meeting adjourned on a motion.