Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
May 8, 2008- 7:00 p.m.
Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Members Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson, Ken Norman and Brian Truman. Staff present was Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department Permit Specialist, Town Planner Henry Laird and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicant Ned Twerdahl was also present.
Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Haines asked that all cell phones be placed on vibrate and then he went over the procedures of the meeting.
Approval of Minutes:
There was a correction to the minutes of March 13, 2008. On page four, the minutes should reflect that Commission Norman voted yes and Commission Truman voted no on the motion. Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the minutes, with corrections, from March 13, 2008, and Commission Truman seconded. The minutes were unanimously approved with the correction.
There were no citizen’s comments.
The first item of business was from Mr. Ned Twerdahl, applicant, of 2074 Delaware Drive. He distributed some copies of drawings and stated that he and his wife would like to install a shed-style roof over an existing slab. The slab measurements are 21x16 roughly, and it is located at the back of the house. He stated their home backs up to the common area for the Winterset Woods subdivision. The ceiling is dropped with a tongue and groove pine inside with cedar shake on the outside to blend in with the surroundings. The homeowners association has approved the covering.
Chair Haines asked if the white columns would match the ones on the front of the house, and Mr. Twerdahl stated that was correct. Mr. Twerdahl stated once the covering is attached that it would look like it has been there since inception.
In answer to a question from Chair Haines, Mr. Twerdahl stated the existing slab extends 16 feet from the house. The posts would actually sit on the actual concrete already in place.
Chair Haines stated the slab was not considered a structure until a hard roof is installed over it. Mr. Twerdahl stated he was not clear about the plat, but in his estimation, the slab was already 3.5 to 4 feet onto the setback.
Mr. Laird read from a memo from Michael Blanks, the Town’s Building Official, which stated “the roof line of the proposed awning structure cover will encroach approximately 16’ into rear setback”.
There was some confusion as to where the setback was located for this property. It was requested that Ms. Simerson pull the plot plan for this Lot # 218. Chair Haines stated Mr. Twerdahl might not even be outside of the envelope of his property.
Mr. Notestine stated one of the important factors of the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider is the impact on the public. The fact that there is a common area behind this property would be a very strong factor in this request. Mr. Twerdahl stated he had spoken to his neighbors, and no one objected.
Mr. Laird stated the file for lot #218 with the plot plan was unable to be located. He pulled the plat for the Winterset Woods subdivision to review the sizes of the lots. He stated the lots were approximately 30 feet from the back of the house to the property line. In the district standards, Mr. Laird said the permitted incidental structures within the setbacks include: “Arbor and trellises; awnings, patio covers, or canopies projecting not more than six feet from the principal building over a required setback and having no supports other than provided by the wall or its integral parts”. He stated this was under Section 2.2.1 (1) and was passed a few months ago. Under this same section under (6) it says: “An uncovered deck that is located at least ten feet from the rear property line does not encroach on required side setbacks, etc.”
Motion by Mr. Norman, seconded by Mr. Turman, that the variance be approved. Mr. Notestine suggested that the minutes should reflect the reason why the variance was approved. He stated you could refer back to the manual and the fact that it does not appear to be harmful to the public interest could be one reason. Whatever reason is chosen, it should be a part of tonight’s record.
Commissioner Norman stated his reason would be that the shed-style cover does not exceed the space of the concrete slab. The owner’s lot does back up to a common area, and it is a fit and finish that does match the existing structure. It does not in anyway distract from the neighbors view. There is really no reason to not approve this request.
Commissioner Turman stated his second was for the same reasons that Commissioner Norman has stated. He stated he had visited the property earlier to view the request. It will blend in with the existing structure once it is completed. It does back up to the common area where there will be plenty of room in the backyard once the structure is completed. It will not impede the residences on both sides of this property. The neighbors have not voiced any opposition to this proposed structure. He stated he would like to mention that the BZA approved a sunroom at the last meeting which is located only two doors from this location. That sunroom exceeds much further back that what this applicant is proposing. The BZA is not here to set a precedent, but the sunroom in a way did set one. The sunroom did not match the existing structure where this one does match the home.
Chairman Haines stated this request would be approved under 1.9.5 Section B: Variances, “where the relief may be granted without detriment to the public good”. The vote was unanimous for the motion.
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 7:25 p.m.