La Vergne zoning board upholds staff finding that former Dollar General sign exceeds 100‑sq‑ft limit
June 30, 2026 | Planning and Zoning Meetings, La Vergne City, Rutherford 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 La Vergne Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 voted to uphold a building official's finding that a refaced wall sign at the former Dollar General at 5152 Mosteller Road exceeds the city's 100-square-foot limit and was installed without a permit.
Mr. White, the city's codes official, told the board the sign face measures about 195 square feet and that both the older and the current sign ordinances cap wall signage at 100 square feet. He said the refacing occurred in December 2025 and that staff found the sign had been erected without an approved permit.
John Drake, an attorney representing the property manager, disputed staff's characterization and argued the work was a replacement of an existing nonconforming sign. Drake cited Tennessee Code Annotated 13-7-208 and case law, saying the statute and precedent require issuance of permits for certain nonconforming signs. "Section G... says actually it's mandatory that permits shall issue," Drake said during sworn testimony.
Board members pressed both sides for factual records about when the original Dollar General sign and the building itself were put in place. Staff noted the city's records extend back to 1990; property records presented at the hearing indicated a 1996 build date for the structure, which, if accurate, would undercut a claim that the sign predated the 1990 standard.
The city attorney reminded members that the applicant bears the burden of proof on appeal and that the board's decision must be based on information presented at the hearing. After discussion, a board member moved to uphold the building official's decision that the sign exceeds the maximum allowed wall signage; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
An attendee asked for copies of the documents provided at the hearing; staff said available records would be provided to the requester. The board did not announce any further remedies or fines on the record at the meeting.
The decision stands as the board's ruling on the appeal; any further legal arguments or requests for permits must follow the city's administrative process.
Mr. White, the city's codes official, told the board the sign face measures about 195 square feet and that both the older and the current sign ordinances cap wall signage at 100 square feet. He said the refacing occurred in December 2025 and that staff found the sign had been erected without an approved permit.
John Drake, an attorney representing the property manager, disputed staff's characterization and argued the work was a replacement of an existing nonconforming sign. Drake cited Tennessee Code Annotated 13-7-208 and case law, saying the statute and precedent require issuance of permits for certain nonconforming signs. "Section G... says actually it's mandatory that permits shall issue," Drake said during sworn testimony.
Board members pressed both sides for factual records about when the original Dollar General sign and the building itself were put in place. Staff noted the city's records extend back to 1990; property records presented at the hearing indicated a 1996 build date for the structure, which, if accurate, would undercut a claim that the sign predated the 1990 standard.
The city attorney reminded members that the applicant bears the burden of proof on appeal and that the board's decision must be based on information presented at the hearing. After discussion, a board member moved to uphold the building official's decision that the sign exceeds the maximum allowed wall signage; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
An attendee asked for copies of the documents provided at the hearing; staff said available records would be provided to the requester. The board did not announce any further remedies or fines on the record at the meeting.
The decision stands as the board's ruling on the appeal; any further legal arguments or requests for permits must follow the city's administrative process.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
