Board denies request to store paving equipment on A1 property after neighbors cite noise and dumping

The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a request by Daniel Love to store paving equipment on 3.5 acres zoned A1, citing staff recommendations and multiple neighbor complaints about noise, debris and alleged dumping in a stream buffer.

At the public hearing, staff told the board that ‘contractor storage yards’ are not permitted nor listed as a use‑on‑appeal in the county’s A1 zone and therefore staff could not recommend approval. Love told the board he has contracted off‑site storage for most machinery and asked to keep a personal work truck, a 6x14 tool trailer and a small Falcon hotbox on the property, saying larger equipment is stored at GCP Truck Storage. He said remaining debris on the property came from a single concrete job and that he planned to remove the material as soon as conditions allow.

Several neighbors described repeated, disruptive activity since the operation began in May. One resident showed short videos and pictures to the board and said a piece of equipment sat in a curve on Norine Road for days without flaggers. Britney Murray, who lives 300 feet from the driveway, said she had been awakened twice this month by dump‑truck reversing alarms and by late‑night equipment movement and that continuous dust and early‑morning activity had disrupted sleep for children. Another neighbor, Misty Lee, said the site is operating as an active commercial business rather than storage and raised concerns about employees, an RV camper parked at the site and safety.

Staff confirmed the zoning complaint led to a Stormwater inspection that found construction debris within the regulated stream buffer; stormwater told the board that the debris would have to be remedied regardless of the zoning outcome. Board members repeatedly noted that while one work truck and one trailer are typically allowed to be kept at a residence (provided the equipment stays on the trailer), the broader contractor‑storage scenario cited by the applicant would not be allowed in A1.

A board member moved to deny the appeal based on staff recommendation and neighborhood testimony; the motion carried by voice vote and the board closed the public‑comment period for the item. The board did not impose any conditions because staff’s written recommendation was to deny and stormwater remediation remains a separate enforcement matter. The denial prevents the applicant from using the property as a contractor storage yard; any future request would need to reflect changes in the proposed use or provide new evidence.