Board of Zoning Appeals

Town Hall, August 10, 2004, 7:00 p.m.

 

Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Member absent was Pat Aldred. Staff present was Counsel Dave and Dana Ausbrooks, Town Engineer Rich Woodroof and Recorder Cindy Lancaster. Applicant Trevon Townsend, Roy Dale and 1 citizen.

 

The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m., with Chair Haines with leading the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Commissioner Felts made a motion to approve the minutes as read, Commissioner Gardner seconded and this passed unanimously.

 

Chair Haines directed rules for conducting a public hearing and described the procedure of conduct. Chair Haines further noted the first item of business was the Tree House request. It was noted that this request had been withdrawn.

 

Chair Haines noted that the second item of business is the Two Way Car Wash. Town Engineer Rich Woodroof handed out a written review in regards to the car wash. He noted there were three requests, which dealt with Sections 2.3.22 C, 1.5.4.C-Appendix B, and 1.5.4.D – Appendix B of the Nolensville Zoning Ordinance.

 

Mr. Roy Dale, Engineer for the Car Wash/applicant, stated that the items before this board this evening was the aforementioned in addition to request a special use variance.

 

Mr. Dale noted that to build a wall would be impossible for parking adjacent to the convenience. Due to the distance it would be difficult, if not impossible, to remove vehicles. Mr. Townsend stated that there is a safety concern. There would be a blind spot from Nolensville Road. The police would not be able to view behind the wall.

 

Mr. Lawson stated the wall would hide possible drug exchanges and/or sex acts. He stated that he felt the wall should be eliminated for security purposes.

 

Attorney Dana Ausbrooks noted that Section 9.2.4 sets out the guidelines for the Board of Zoning Appeals to review. In order for this board to grant a variance each criteria must be met.

 

Attorney Dave Ausbrooks stated that the first order of business should be if this meets the Special Use criteria.

 

Engineer Woodroof stated that it appears to meet all the Special Use, except the wall requirements in “C”.

 

Attorney Dave Ausbrooks again directed the board to review Section 9 to see if there is a reason to grant this variance.

 

Chair Haines pointed out Section 9.2.4. A. It was agreed the Special Use Request in addition to the wall removal request met the criteria for subsection “A”. Mr. Felts stated that he could see where the wall is going to be a problem in regards to safety concern for subsection “B”. The board completed subsections C & D with a motion by Mr. Felts to grant a variance for the Special Use request in addition to the wall elimination. This was seconded by Mr. Lawson and passed unanimously by the board.

 

Attorney Dave Ausbrooks reiterated that the first two variance request had been approved.

 

The board then reviewed the second request, which dealt with section 1.5.4.C of the zoning ordinance. The request is to alter and remove the landscape buffer requirement. The board went to section 9.2.4, Subsections A, B, C, and D. Chair Haines made a motion to grant this variance request, Mr. Gardner seconded and this passed unanimously.

 

The fourth request was then discussed. It was noted that this pertains to section 1.5.4.D of the zoning ordinance and will remove the landscape strip requirement between the building and adjacent to off street parking area or drive aisles.

 

Mr. Felts went over figures and footage from the building to the parking lot.

 

Mr. Dale then showed the board another map that indicated the parking.

 

The criteria of Section 9 was discussed and Chair Haines made a motion to grant the variance due to criteria being met. Mr. Felts seconded and this passed unanimously.

 

Mr. Felts made a motion to adjourn at 7:37, Mr. Gardner seconded and this passed unanimously.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Cindy Lancaster