Commission denies special exception for firearm-transfer office on Highway 64
May 22, 2026 | Bedford County, Tennessee
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Bedford County Planning Commission denied a special-exception request from an applicant seeking to operate a licensed professional office for lawful firearm transfers at 1436 Highway 64 East.
At the meeting, planning staff described the 3.69-acre parcel and told the commission that "the business requires licensure by the United States Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," and that the site appeared to meet zoning factors such as visibility, ingress and egress, parking and vegetative buffering. Staff said the applicant had submitted a signed statement authorizing pursuit of the proposed use and that, on paper, the approval criteria "are or can be satisfied." (Staff presentation: SEG 052–SEG 072.)
Neighbors urged the commission to reject the request. "We we don't want any commercial development in that area," resident Randy Head told the board, adding that the parcel is agricultural and should remain so. Dwayne Sullivan, who said his house is about 685 feet from the proposed site, said: "We don't need this in my front door... I'm totally against it." (Public comment: SEG 093–SEG 131.)
Commission discussion focused on whether the application met the local special‑exception standards in the zoning resolution. One commissioner moved for a conditional approval limited to three years to mirror the expected ATF permit period, saying he "didn't really like this, but I see where we are" and that he wanted a time-limited approval. Another commissioner read the special-exception criteria aloud and said, "to be perfectly honest, I don't think it meets them." (Discussion and motions: SEG 146–SEG 189; SEG 166–SEG 203.)
The board moved to deny and the clerk took a roll-call vote; the chair announced the denial as passing by the board's recorded votes. The transcript records the roll call and the chair's announcement that the motion passed unanimously. (Vote and roll call: SEG 221–SEG 238.)
No further appeals or next steps were stated on the record. The item was entered as denied and the commission proceeded to subsequent agenda items.
At the meeting, planning staff described the 3.69-acre parcel and told the commission that "the business requires licensure by the United States Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," and that the site appeared to meet zoning factors such as visibility, ingress and egress, parking and vegetative buffering. Staff said the applicant had submitted a signed statement authorizing pursuit of the proposed use and that, on paper, the approval criteria "are or can be satisfied." (Staff presentation: SEG 052–SEG 072.)
Neighbors urged the commission to reject the request. "We we don't want any commercial development in that area," resident Randy Head told the board, adding that the parcel is agricultural and should remain so. Dwayne Sullivan, who said his house is about 685 feet from the proposed site, said: "We don't need this in my front door... I'm totally against it." (Public comment: SEG 093–SEG 131.)
Commission discussion focused on whether the application met the local special‑exception standards in the zoning resolution. One commissioner moved for a conditional approval limited to three years to mirror the expected ATF permit period, saying he "didn't really like this, but I see where we are" and that he wanted a time-limited approval. Another commissioner read the special-exception criteria aloud and said, "to be perfectly honest, I don't think it meets them." (Discussion and motions: SEG 146–SEG 189; SEG 166–SEG 203.)
The board moved to deny and the clerk took a roll-call vote; the chair announced the denial as passing by the board's recorded votes. The transcript records the roll call and the chair's announcement that the motion passed unanimously. (Vote and roll call: SEG 221–SEG 238.)
No further appeals or next steps were stated on the record. The item was entered as denied and the commission proceeded to subsequent agenda items.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
