Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, March 27, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Pat Aldred, Tommy Dugger, and Charles Lawson. Members absent were
Bob Haines and Brian Truman. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Building Official
Michael Blanks, and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicants Mr. Christopher Kleczynski
of 3325 Redmon Hill Lane, Mr. David Barlow representing applicant Mr. George Deleon at 2131
Sister Court and Mr. Austin Pennington with McFarlin Woods were in attendance. Sixteen
citizens were present.
Commissioner Tommy Dugger opened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Counsel Notestine noted that due to this meeting being the first of the year, officers should be
Commissioner Lawson nominated Bob Haines as Chairman, Commissioner Aldred seconded the
nomination. Mr. Haines was unanimously elected as Chairman. Commissioner Aldred
nominated Commissioner Lawson as Vice-Chairman, Commissioner Dugger seconded.
Commissioner Lawson nominated Commissioner Aldred as Vice-Chairman, Commissioner
Dugger seconded. The vote was taken on the nominations on the floor with Commissioner
Aldred voting for Commissioner Lawson as Vice Chairman. Commissioners Dugger and
Lawson voted for Commissioner Aldred as Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Pat Aldred is the
Vice-Chairman for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the minutes from December 12, 2006,
Commissioner Dugger seconded. The minutes passed with majority vote. Commissioners
Aldred and Lawson voted for approval, Commissioner Dugger abstained.
Ms. Dianna Stout, 253 Norfolk Lane, stated that she is concerned with an area in McFarlin
Woods. She stated that the detention pond does not appear to be complete. There are piles of
rocks and debris that remains appearing to be unfinished. She stated that she would like to
request that something be done to clean this up.
Alderman Joe Curtsinger, 7380 Nolensville Road, asked who set the agenda for the Board of
Zoning Appeal meetings. He stated that the regular meeting is the seconded Thursday of the
month. He spoke to Counsel and it was stated that adequate notice was not given for the regular
monthly meeting. In reviewing TCA, it states that if it is unintentional a meeting cannot be
moved. He said that if it is intentional it can be moved. Alderman Curtsinger noted that there is no provision that allows this board to meet tonight.
Counsel Notestine stated that some people see the law as black and white. If Alderman
Curtsinger can show Counsel the location in the statute that states this meeting cannot be held on
this night he will review.
Mayor Beth Lothers stated that this board was scheduled to meet at its regular time. It was
discovered that adequate notice was not given to one applicant. The town gave adequate notice
of this meeting and fulfilled the proper notification of property owners. The town did not want to
go against its own laws by not providing the proper notification to all parties.
Alderman Curtsinger stated that he had conferred with MTAS and they stated that if the BZA is
silent, it must revert back to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the town’s Counsel Mr.
Notestine has stated in previous meetings that the way an applicant attack’s an appeal is to go to
Commissioner Dugger stated that he thinks it would be a disservice for these applicants if this is
Vice-Chairman Aldred stated that for the good of the people and the advice of Counsel she feels
that this meeting should be held tonight.
Counsel Notestine stated that it is his recommendation to move forward.
Mr. Chris Kleczlynski applicant of 3325 Redmon Hill, is requesting a variance for a deck
construction from the rear yard set back at his residence. There is an existing 15 foot rear yard
setback that was set by the approval of the final P.U.D. on this lot which is lot 229 of Bent Creek,
Phase 1, Section 2B. Mr. Kleczlynski is requesting a variance to encroach 10 inches into the 15
foot rear setback to install a deck.
Mr. Chris Kleczynski addressed the board noting that he has decreased the size of the deck. He
stated that his house backs up to the 15 foot setback. He noted that the deck matches the patio
line and is flush. He pointed out that there is a common area behind his home and he, along with
his neighbors, feel that it is not detrimental to construct the deck.
Mr. Larry Gardner, York Road, asked why this request was on the agenda. He stated that it was
killed not once, but twice. He said that this deck lies 100% outside the building envelope. Mr.
Gardner noted that the applicant had already extended the patio and that was not even Board of Zoning Appeals
mentioned. He stated that the applicant violated the code because he began work on the deck
without a permit. He noted that the town attorney stated on page 4 of the minutes, there is no
other remedy at the town level; he said he could seek to go to court. Mr. Gardner said again that
he did not see why he is even on the agenda. He stated that the applicant was sent a letter by
Rich Woodroof to have the deck torn down. Mr. Gardner stated that our zoning is no good if we
do not follow the law and stick to it. He noted that only once in the past six years has a variance
been granted for a situation such as this. He stated that the majority of decks approved were in
the building envelope. Mr. Gardner ask the board to reject this again and have the deck torn
Mayor Lothers stated that she would like to clarify some issues. She stated that she was
contacted by the applicant. There was a letter sent to the applicant by the town that was
incorrect. She stated that the letter had an incorrect date in addition to spelling the applicant’s
name incorrectly. The Mayor stated that the applicant requested to submit a new application.
She requested clarification from the Town Attorney, and he stated that a new application may be
submitted. She further stated that she attended a conference and she was told an applicant is
allowed to submit an application with a changed concept. Mayor Lothers stated that she followed
the attorney’s lead and told the applicant that a new application could be submitted.
Mr. Gardner stated that the minutes stated this request was heard.
Mayor Lothers stated that this board must rule on the applicant’s original request. She stated that
this board cannot rule on anything other than the application request. She stated that she takes
this process very seriously.
Counsel Notestine stated that Mr. Gardner contacted him in regards to this application. It was
suggested that the town go in and tear down the deck. If the town were to remove this deck
without allowing the applicant to go through the proper process, the town may be liable. Counsel
Notestine stated there is question if it is harmful to public.
Counsel Notestine further stated that when someone files a lawsuit the judge responds to the
complaint. The Board of Zoning Appeals must respond to the application. He stated that if the
applicant does not like the process then it can go to court and be challenged. Counsel Notestine
stated that there is nothing in this Zoning Ordinance that says an applicant cannot come back with
a different application. It is my opinion that it can be heard. The town accepted the application.
Mr. Kleczynski stated that this is the hardest thing he has ever done. He asked Mr. Gardner if he
should be afraid of him? He stated that this behavior was very disturbing to him.
Commissioner Dugger stated that he did not think the 10 X 20 deck was ever voted on.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Alderman Curtsinger and Mr. Gardner disagreed with him.
Mr. Frank Wilson, Nolensville Road, stated that what he is hearing is that the deck he has now is
Alderman Curtsinger stated that it is very disturbing to him to hear what he is hearing tonight.
He referred to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting in February and stated that he was
reading from those minutes. He stated that if the board looks at the request someone took an
application for an administrative appeal. He stated that is the way it reads. He further noted that
it is not signed and payment is not shown. He asked if the applicant paid a fee. He stated that we
voted on a concept of a structure building outside the envelope. He said that he challenges that 2
foot is not a marketable difference. He stated that this thing does not need to go further. He
noted that the Mayor was contacted by MTAS, which said this should not go further. He noted
that when he spoke to the Board of Professional Appeal, they said to challenge it tonight and then
bring it to them and they will review. He stated that the applicant should be going for a building
permit and not a BZA request.
Mayor Lothers stated that as a representative of the Board, it would not be the proper process to
have an applicant tear down the structure while the process is being carried out.
Mr. Kleczynski stated that he did not have the privilege to see the minutes that Alderman
Curtsinger referred. He noted that he did make the mistake of beginning the construction without
a permit. He stated that he contacted Town Hall and was told that he could not get a building
permit until he received permission from the BZA. He stated that the letter he received from Mr.
Woodroof stated to tear the deck down a year prior to it being built. He noted that this
application is a different request from the previous application.
Counsel Notestine stated that the law states the BZA hears appeals of administrative decision.
He noted that this is a decision made from staff.
Ms. Jennifer Lopey, 3200 Locust Hollow, stated that she did not know the laws, but Mr.
Kleczynski’s deck is a vast improvement. She stated that she feel’s everyone is making a big
deal over nothing. She stated that she wished there were other people from the neighborhood in
attendance to speak on Chris’s behalf, because they would want it voted for.
Alderman Curtsinger gave Vice Chair Aldred documents that he requested be added to the record.
Counsel Notestine clarified that he did not vote, nor does he tell people how to vote.
Mayor Lothers stated that she had sent an email to the Town Attorney and a copy to the BZA from MTAS with their opinion on the application issue. She further stated that she does not
know what Alderman Curtsinger presented, although in her correspondence no where does it say
that an applicant cannot reapply with different conditions.
Ms. Diana Stout asked what easement is this. Mr. Gardner explained that it is encroaching on the
building envelope. Ms Stout stated isn’t that what a variance is for.
Commissioner Dugger noted that it was mentioned that the applicant increased the patio size.
The applicant stated that was incorrect. He stated that if you review you will see that the builder
has failed to follow through on several deck issues and that is why the BZA has heard several of
these request. He noted that all he was trying to do is to beautify his home and protect the
children from his spa. He stated that this doesn’t feel right and he felt there is a personal vendetta
from Mr. Curtsinger and Mr. Gardner.
Mayor Lothers stated that due to the number of request she has educated herself on why these
issues keep arising. She asked Michael Blanks to respond to what the town is reviewing in
regards to the building envelope.
Mr. Blanks stated that there is one other town in Williamson County that does not allow a deck to
be built outside the building envelope. He stated that the town is currently reviewing this to
allow building decks outside the building envelope. The town’s definition in the Zoning
Ordinance does not define decks as a structure. He stated that the town does have some decks
outside the building envelope. The previous building inspector made the interpretation of the
building envelope. Mr. Blanks noted that he initially had contacted Mr. Kleczynski about the
deck being constructed without a permit and he was very cordial. The patio is outside the
building envelope. The deck will not encroach anymore in the building envelope than the patio.
Mr. Blanks stated that it was his opinion that he is applying for a complete different variance. He
stated that currently he and the Town Planner are working together in addressing this issue in the
Alderman Curtsinger asked how this can be considered if there is not even a permit. He stated
that the Planning Commission and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen adopted the sub regs which
says you must have a permit. If everyone is allowed to encroach where does it stop. He stated
that the BZA needs to stop this tonight.
Commissioner Lawson asked if the board votes to approve this, what are the requirements for
safety around the pool.
Mr. Blanks stated that the code does address these requirements. He further noted that currently
this is an issue that is being addressed on a national level. Mr. Blanks stated that he would need
to research the requirements, although he did know that if the deck is over 30 inches in height it must have spindles and a guard rail.
Vice-Chair Aldred stated that the variance is not for a hot tub, it is for a deck.
Commissioner Dugger stated that as far as the patio, compared to a structure, he may disagree
with the Building Official. It does encroach. He stated that this board must deal with what is
before them tonight and cannot take into account the possible amendments to the ordinance.
Citizen’s comments were closed.
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance. The motion died for a lack of a
Commissioner Dugger stated that when driving by and observing, there is open space behind the
home and he feels that there is a safety issue.
Commissioner Lawson stated that he drove by and observed that he had cut the deck back and the
hand rails would be 3 foot high. He stated that he felt that due to the shape of the lot this is a
Commissioner Aldred stated that in reviewing Section 9.2.4, and it being a corner lot, she isn’t
sure what the hardship would be. She stated that the applicant had previously stated that he was
in attendance for other deck request; therefore she feels that he should have been aware that a
permit was required. Commissioner Aldred stated that the deck violates the approved PUD for
the Bent Creek Subdivision. She further stated that she realized there was open area in the rear of
the residence. She told the applicant that she was sorry if he was deceived by the builder and
maybe he should approach the builder on this issue.
Mr. David Barlow submitted an application for Mr. George Deleon at 2131 Sister Court for a
variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback with the approval of the preliminary plat by
Williamson County on this lot in Winterset Woods, Section 2. The application does not specify
the dimensions of the encroachment into the rear setback. It appears the proposed sun room
encroaches approximately 5 feet into the 30 foot rear setback.
Mr. Barlow was in attendance representing Mr. Deleon for this request. He stated that Mrs.
Kathy Deleon, Mr. Deleon’s spouse, was in attendance. Mr. Barlow told the Board that the patio
is currently in the location that the sun room will be constructed.
Commissioner Aldred inquired on the specific location of the house in regards to the lot. It was
noted that it was 30 foot.
Ms. Deleon stated that it will look good when it is completed. She noted there is common ground
behind the house.
Commissioner Aldred stated that it appears concrete will be poured in the back of the home.
Commissioner Dugger inquired to the exact encroachment. Mr. Barlow stated that it would be 3
foot, 9 inches outside the building envelope.
Building Official Michael Blanks stated that there is a 2 foot offset. He stated that the patio is 10
feet deep; therefore, it would be a little less than a four foot encroachment.
Commissioner Aldred stated that a letter was faxed to town hall today from a neighbor. She read
the letter to the audience.
Mr. Barlow stated that the Homeowners Association had given approval for this room. He
submitted a copy of the letter.
Ms. Deleon stated that she was confused on what the neighbor was talking about in the letter in
regards to blocking the view. She stated that a berm is blocking his home from the view of the
Mr. Blanks stated that it should be noted that this is an addition. This addition must be
Commissioner Dugger asked if the applicant had considered constructing the room within the
envelope. Mr. Barlow stated that he had not. Commissioner Dugger asked if it was an option.
Mr. Barlow handed out a document that indicated the elevation of the lot.
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance to extend 4 foot outside the
building envelope. The motion died for a lack of second.
Counsel Notestine noted that the hardship cannot be self-imposed. He reminded the applicant
that if it fits within the building envelope, a building permit may be obtained and an application
does not have to be submitted to the BZA.
Mr. Barlow stated that it may be built within that area, although, there would not be enough room
to enjoy anything. The room would be 6 foot wide.
Mr. Austin Pennington submitted an application for McFarlin Woods Subdivision, Sections 5 and
6 for a variance of Article 1.7.0 Underground Utilities of the Nolensville Zoning Ordinance. This
variance is pertaining to the electrical lines in these sections of the McFarlin Woods development.
Mr. Pennington stated that the first three phases were built under Williamson County’s
jurisdiction. He stated that they had gone before the Planning Commission in December to
obtain clarification. The item remaining was the electrical utilities being allowed to remain
above ground as originally agreed with the county.
Mr. Pennington noted that Little John Engineering, the Engineering firm was in attendance. Mr.
Pennington also read a letter from Middle Tennessee Electric giving specifications required in
regards to above ground vs. underground utilities. He stated that they are requesting to continue
with overhead utilities into Section 4 as began in Sections 1, 2, and 3.
Counsel Notestine noted that this was approved under the county jurisdiction.
Mr. Frank Wilson, Nolensville Road, noted that he is a Planning Commission member and the
feeling from this Commission is they wanted to keep the subdivision uniform. The general
consensus was to have this allowed. He stated that this is the final two phases and it will match
what is already there.
Commissioner Lawson inquired to the number of lots that were involved? Mr. Pennington stated
that there were 30 lots. Mr. Pennington additionally stated that the detention pond and the
concerns that the lady had inquired about earlier could be addressed.
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve this variance in order to eliminate any more
blasting and to allow uniformity to protect the public welfare. Commissioner Lawson seconded
the motion and stated that due to the fact only 30 lots remain, he was for this variance. The vote
was taken and unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 8:35 p.m.