2005
Minutes Archive
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, November 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof, and Counsel Robert Notestine. Applicant James and Edwina Stepp and 5 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Haines went over the procedures for this hearing.
Commissioner Felts made a motion to approve the minutes of October 11, 2005, Commissioner Lawson seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines noted that this was a portion of the meeting for citizen’s comments.
Mr. James Stepp, 604 Candleshoe Court, stated he was not able to attend the BZA meeting in 2002 that this was originally approved. He said that he would like to keep the ramp that was being discussed this evening. He showed pictures of the ramp and noted that it was not unsightly. He stated that the pictures were taken approximately two months ago and would like for the ramp to remain.
Mrs. Edwina Stepp, 604 Candleshoe Court, stated that she was at the meeting and does not remember a vote taken in regards to the ramp being removed after it was no longer needed. She stated that she wanted to listen to the tape of the minutes, but it could not be located.
Commissioner Aldred stated that they had a copy of the minutes from 2002 and it states that the ramp must be removed when it is no longer needed by the mother.
Mr. Gerald Putman, 602 Candleshoe Court, noted that he was at the meeting in 2002 and the stipulation was made at that meeting to remove the ramp once it was no longer needed. He stated that he called town hall and inquired about the removed a few months ago. At that time it was unsightly with the carpet rolled up and in bad repair. He further noted that the ramp is 4’ from his property line and was not opposed to the construction, if it was removed once it was no longer needed.
Mr. Stepp stated that the carpet had rolled and it has since been removed.
Counsel Notestine stated that once minutes are approved, copies of the tape are not retained.
Mr. Stepp’s attorney was present and stated that he was at their home after the death of Ms. Stepp and specifically asked about the ramp. The Stepp’s stated that they would be keeping the ramp. Due to this conversation, he felt that it was not out of malice that they did not remove the ramp and wanted the board to know this.
Commissioner Gardner stated that he was at the meeting and he recalled that this stipulation was made.
Ms. Rachel Brabner, stated that her property joins the back of the Stepp’s property and she does not have a problem with the ramp remaining.
There was no further citizen’s comments.
The variance request for a ramp at 604 Candleshoe Court was addressed by Town Engineer Woodroof. He stated that the side yard set backs are 15’ and with the construction of the ramp it takes it to 4 ½’. He stated that this is the will of the board.
Counsel Notestine noted the criteria and standards to grant a variance.
Chair Haines asked if the Stepp’s would object to painting the ramp. Ms. Stepp stated that she did not want to paint it, although she would stain it.
Mr. Putman stated that he was in attendance at the meeting in 2002 and it was his opinion that if you agreed to a stipulation, that stipulation should be upheld.
Commissioner Lawson noted that the Stepp’s also have an aunt in a wheelchair that utilizes the ramp and that should be considered.
Commissioner Felts stated that he has looked at the pictures and can understand the neighbors issues, but with maybe some landscaping and painting the ramp could possibly remain.
Mr. Putman stated that he had no objection when this was built. He noted that it has served its purpose and the board made the condition in 2002. The board should adhere to this condition. He stated that he had been tolerant for the past three years.
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance referring to section 9.2.4.D. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to deny the variance due to the stipulation from the 2002 minutes, Commissioner Aldred seconded.
Again, Commissioner Lawson reiterated that the ramp was being utilized by the Aunt and should be considered.
Commissioner Felts stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lawson.
Chair Haines asked Mr. Putman, that if the Stepp’s agreed to fix the ramp and it’s appearance, would he object to it remaining.
Mr. Putman stated that he did not want to be hard about this, but this was the agreement that was made in 2002 at the BZA meeting. He further stated that he has an Aunt that is in a wheelchair and when she visits they bring her in their front door.
The vote was then taken with Commissioners Aldred, Gardner and Haines for denying the variance, Commissioners Felts and Lawson against. Therefore the variance was denied.
The meeting adjourned at 7:29.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Town Hall, November 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof, and Counsel Robert Notestine. Applicant James and Edwina Stepp and 5 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Haines went over the procedures for this hearing.
Commissioner Felts made a motion to approve the minutes of October 11, 2005, Commissioner Lawson seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines noted that this was a portion of the meeting for citizen’s comments.
Mr. James Stepp, 604 Candleshoe Court, stated he was not able to attend the BZA meeting in 2002 that this was originally approved. He said that he would like to keep the ramp that was being discussed this evening. He showed pictures of the ramp and noted that it was not unsightly. He stated that the pictures were taken approximately two months ago and would like for the ramp to remain.
Mrs. Edwina Stepp, 604 Candleshoe Court, stated that she was at the meeting and does not remember a vote taken in regards to the ramp being removed after it was no longer needed. She stated that she wanted to listen to the tape of the minutes, but it could not be located.
Commissioner Aldred stated that they had a copy of the minutes from 2002 and it states that the ramp must be removed when it is no longer needed by the mother.
Mr. Gerald Putman, 602 Candleshoe Court, noted that he was at the meeting in 2002 and the stipulation was made at that meeting to remove the ramp once it was no longer needed. He stated that he called town hall and inquired about the removed a few months ago. At that time it was unsightly with the carpet rolled up and in bad repair. He further noted that the ramp is 4’ from his property line and was not opposed to the construction, if it was removed once it was no longer needed.
Mr. Stepp stated that the carpet had rolled and it has since been removed.
Counsel Notestine stated that once minutes are approved, copies of the tape are not retained.
Mr. Stepp’s attorney was present and stated that he was at their home after the death of Ms. Stepp and specifically asked about the ramp. The Stepp’s stated that they would be keeping the ramp. Due to this conversation, he felt that it was not out of malice that they did not remove the ramp and wanted the board to know this.
Commissioner Gardner stated that he was at the meeting and he recalled that this stipulation was made.
Ms. Rachel Brabner, stated that her property joins the back of the Stepp’s property and she does not have a problem with the ramp remaining.
There was no further citizen’s comments.
The variance request for a ramp at 604 Candleshoe Court was addressed by Town Engineer Woodroof. He stated that the side yard set backs are 15’ and with the construction of the ramp it takes it to 4 ½’. He stated that this is the will of the board.
Counsel Notestine noted the criteria and standards to grant a variance.
Chair Haines asked if the Stepp’s would object to painting the ramp. Ms. Stepp stated that she did not want to paint it, although she would stain it.
Mr. Putman stated that he was in attendance at the meeting in 2002 and it was his opinion that if you agreed to a stipulation, that stipulation should be upheld.
Commissioner Lawson noted that the Stepp’s also have an aunt in a wheelchair that utilizes the ramp and that should be considered.
Commissioner Felts stated that he has looked at the pictures and can understand the neighbors issues, but with maybe some landscaping and painting the ramp could possibly remain.
Mr. Putman stated that he had no objection when this was built. He noted that it has served its purpose and the board made the condition in 2002. The board should adhere to this condition. He stated that he had been tolerant for the past three years.
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance referring to section 9.2.4.D. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to deny the variance due to the stipulation from the 2002 minutes, Commissioner Aldred seconded.
Again, Commissioner Lawson reiterated that the ramp was being utilized by the Aunt and should be considered.
Commissioner Felts stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lawson.
Chair Haines asked Mr. Putman, that if the Stepp’s agreed to fix the ramp and it’s appearance, would he object to it remaining.
Mr. Putman stated that he did not want to be hard about this, but this was the agreement that was made in 2002 at the BZA meeting. He further stated that he has an Aunt that is in a wheelchair and when she visits they bring her in their front door.
The vote was then taken with Commissioners Aldred, Gardner and Haines for denying the variance, Commissioners Felts and Lawson against. Therefore the variance was denied.
The meeting adjourned at 7:29.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, October 11, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Pat Aldred was absent. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof, Building Inspector Michael Blanks and Counsel Robert Notestine. Applicant Brent Hopper with Newmark Homes and 6 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of September 13, 2005, Commissioner Lawson seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines briefly went over the procedures of the meeting. Noting that staff would proceed initially and the public would have input.
There were no comments from the audience.
Application for variance for Lot 204, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Mr. Brent Hopper, Newmark, stated that he is requesting three different variances due to special circumstances with the future occupants of the home.
Board member Felts stated that there may have been a hardship, but he was in hopes that this issue has been rectified after the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on September 13.
Mr. Hopper stated that these are the only three requests for this issue that will be before this board.
Chair Haines stated that he has a problem with granting these variances. He noted that he had checked with other municipalities and Brentwood does not allow building outside the envelope.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Lawson seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Application for variance for Lot 205, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Counsel Notestine noted that each application has referred to a common area that is in the rear of these lots. He further stated that this is not relevant to this variance.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Felts seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Application for variance for Lot 224, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Board member Lawson made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Gardner seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Mr. Hopper thanked the board for considering these issues. Mr. Ray Kash, representative of Newmark, asked if a patio could be constructed at the end of the steps. Board member Gardner stated that a 3 X 3 pad could be built, but no larger.
The meeting adjourned at 7:18.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Town Hall, October 11, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Pat Aldred was absent. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof, Building Inspector Michael Blanks and Counsel Robert Notestine. Applicant Brent Hopper with Newmark Homes and 6 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of September 13, 2005, Commissioner Lawson seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines briefly went over the procedures of the meeting. Noting that staff would proceed initially and the public would have input.
There were no comments from the audience.
Application for variance for Lot 204, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Mr. Brent Hopper, Newmark, stated that he is requesting three different variances due to special circumstances with the future occupants of the home.
Board member Felts stated that there may have been a hardship, but he was in hopes that this issue has been rectified after the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on September 13.
Mr. Hopper stated that these are the only three requests for this issue that will be before this board.
Chair Haines stated that he has a problem with granting these variances. He noted that he had checked with other municipalities and Brentwood does not allow building outside the envelope.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Lawson seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Application for variance for Lot 205, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Counsel Notestine noted that each application has referred to a common area that is in the rear of these lots. He further stated that this is not relevant to this variance.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Felts seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Application for variance for Lot 224, Bent Creek.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicants were requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance sections 1.3.2, General Terms. He noted that this is a request for a deck to be built outside the building envelope. Mr. Woodroof’s recommendation is to allow the applicant to build an 8 X 10 deck.
Board member Lawson made a motion to approve this variance based on Section 9.2.4. D, harm to public welfare. Additionally, there is to be no roof built on the deck, although a retractable awning could be installed; Board member Gardner seconded this motion. This variance was granted unanimously.
Mr. Hopper thanked the board for considering these issues. Mr. Ray Kash, representative of Newmark, asked if a patio could be constructed at the end of the steps. Board member Gardner stated that a 3 X 3 pad could be built, but no larger.
The meeting adjourned at 7:18.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, September 13, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof. Applicant Brent Hopper with Newmark Homes and 6 other citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 2005, Commissioner Gardner seconded. Chair Haines amended the minutes by removing the word “would”, to correct sentence structure. The sentence now reads, “this procedure was best for this applicant.” The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
Chair Haines briefly went over the procedures of the meeting. Noting that staff would proceed initially and the public would have input. He noted the procedure that could be taken by the applicant if this request was denied.
There were no comments from the audience at this time.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicant had requested to build a deck outside of the building envelope. He noted his denial was due to the definition of structure. He noted that the lots are small and you encroach on opposing lots.
Mr. Brent Hopper of Newmark Homes stated the reason this had gotten to this point is the interpretation of Nashville, Franklin and Brentwood allow this. He assumed Nolensville would allow this also.
Commissioner Aldred asked do all of you houses fill up the building envelope? Mr. Hopper stated that most all do not back up to another lot. The deeper floor plans are the ones that have this issue before them. Commissioner Aldred stated that she felt this was Newmark’s problem. Mr. Hopper reiterated that everywhere else a structure is defined only if it has a roof.
Commissioner Lawson asked the distance of the rear lot line? It was stated 15 – 20 feet. It was noted that they could have a concrete patio. Commissioner Lawson stated that every subdivision that he has worked in that is high, does have a deck.
Commissioner Felts asked, approximately how many plans do you have this problem with? Commissioner Haines had a map of the homes that the board reviewed noting other homes with this same issue.
Engineer Woodroof stated that if the administrative decision is overturned by this board, every issue within the Town of Nolensville will be allowed to build outside the building envelope. Board member Lawson then asked if this would apply to everything in Bent Creek. Engineer Woodroof stated it would apply to everything within the town limits.
Ms. Judy Richmond, Real Estate Agent with Caldwell Banker, stated that she has sold one of these homes that has this problem. She stated that her buyer was an 80-year old man and if she had known he could not have a deck she would not have sold this particular home to him. She asked the board to make some type of concession for these homeowners.
Mr. Donnie Wheeler, homeowner at Bent Creek, stated that his concern is with his wife who has arthritis. He noted that he does have small children and a safety concern for them as well. He stated he did not understand the real issue of building the deck. Engineer Woodroof stated that it is an egress issue.
Mrs. Julie Wheeler, homeowner at Bent Creek, noted that she has a hard time with her current medical condition. She stated that when the lot was purchased it looked flat, although after building the home it was much higher.
Mr. Jim Howell, noted he is on lot 205 in Bent Creek. He demonstrated that if he stood up and held his arms up, his knuckles touched the bottom of his door going to the outside of his home. He stated that he has a 14 month old child and his concern is safety, in addition to the resale value of his home without a deck.
Board Member Felts stated he has a concern with this being a blanket, and asked if they could come back on a one-on-one basis for a variance.
Mr. Hopper stated that he submitted a “blanket” request due to the cost of each individual request. The cost would be $50 per request. Board Member Felts stated that if he voted for this he would be opening pandora box.
Chair Haines stated that some of the lots you have built in the whole envelope and there isn’t a problem. He noted that he feels for the residents that have bought these homes, but this board cannot vote from the heart. He stated that there is criteria that must be followed and in particular four issues. Engineer Woodroof reiterated that the request before this board is an appeal of an administrative decision, not a variance request.
Mr. Wheeler asked if they could build a deck that was not as deep and large. Engineer Woodroof stated that as long as it is built within the envelope.
Board Member Gardner made a motion to deny this request, Board Member Aldred seconded.
Mr. Ray Kash, Newmark Homes, asked if they could take a different route and apply for a variance for each of these homes? Engineer Woodroof stated that anyone can come before this Board if they follow the proper procedure.
Mr. Howell stated that previously criteria was mentioned to approve a variance, what are these criteria? Chair Haines and Engineer Woodroof explained this criteria.
Mr. Hopper asked that if he requested a variance for each of these homes what would be the time frame that they could be heard. Engineer Woodroof stated that the information must be into Town Hall 21 days prior to the meeting.
Ms. Richmond asked if there would be a chance that a variance would be allowed? Engineer Woodroof stated it is a possibility if the criteria is met.
The vote was then taken with Board Members Aldred, Felts, Gardner and Haines to deny this request and Board Member Lawson voted against. The board agreed that Staff’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was correct.
The meeting adjourned at 7:44.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Hall, September 13, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof. Applicant Brent Hopper with Newmark Homes and 6 other citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 2005, Commissioner Gardner seconded. Chair Haines amended the minutes by removing the word “would”, to correct sentence structure. The sentence now reads, “this procedure was best for this applicant.” The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
Chair Haines briefly went over the procedures of the meeting. Noting that staff would proceed initially and the public would have input. He noted the procedure that could be taken by the applicant if this request was denied.
There were no comments from the audience at this time.
Engineer Woodroof noted that the applicant had requested to build a deck outside of the building envelope. He noted his denial was due to the definition of structure. He noted that the lots are small and you encroach on opposing lots.
Mr. Brent Hopper of Newmark Homes stated the reason this had gotten to this point is the interpretation of Nashville, Franklin and Brentwood allow this. He assumed Nolensville would allow this also.
Commissioner Aldred asked do all of you houses fill up the building envelope? Mr. Hopper stated that most all do not back up to another lot. The deeper floor plans are the ones that have this issue before them. Commissioner Aldred stated that she felt this was Newmark’s problem. Mr. Hopper reiterated that everywhere else a structure is defined only if it has a roof.
Commissioner Lawson asked the distance of the rear lot line? It was stated 15 – 20 feet. It was noted that they could have a concrete patio. Commissioner Lawson stated that every subdivision that he has worked in that is high, does have a deck.
Commissioner Felts asked, approximately how many plans do you have this problem with? Commissioner Haines had a map of the homes that the board reviewed noting other homes with this same issue.
Engineer Woodroof stated that if the administrative decision is overturned by this board, every issue within the Town of Nolensville will be allowed to build outside the building envelope. Board member Lawson then asked if this would apply to everything in Bent Creek. Engineer Woodroof stated it would apply to everything within the town limits.
Ms. Judy Richmond, Real Estate Agent with Caldwell Banker, stated that she has sold one of these homes that has this problem. She stated that her buyer was an 80-year old man and if she had known he could not have a deck she would not have sold this particular home to him. She asked the board to make some type of concession for these homeowners.
Mr. Donnie Wheeler, homeowner at Bent Creek, stated that his concern is with his wife who has arthritis. He noted that he does have small children and a safety concern for them as well. He stated he did not understand the real issue of building the deck. Engineer Woodroof stated that it is an egress issue.
Mrs. Julie Wheeler, homeowner at Bent Creek, noted that she has a hard time with her current medical condition. She stated that when the lot was purchased it looked flat, although after building the home it was much higher.
Mr. Jim Howell, noted he is on lot 205 in Bent Creek. He demonstrated that if he stood up and held his arms up, his knuckles touched the bottom of his door going to the outside of his home. He stated that he has a 14 month old child and his concern is safety, in addition to the resale value of his home without a deck.
Board Member Felts stated he has a concern with this being a blanket, and asked if they could come back on a one-on-one basis for a variance.
Mr. Hopper stated that he submitted a “blanket” request due to the cost of each individual request. The cost would be $50 per request. Board Member Felts stated that if he voted for this he would be opening pandora box.
Chair Haines stated that some of the lots you have built in the whole envelope and there isn’t a problem. He noted that he feels for the residents that have bought these homes, but this board cannot vote from the heart. He stated that there is criteria that must be followed and in particular four issues. Engineer Woodroof reiterated that the request before this board is an appeal of an administrative decision, not a variance request.
Mr. Wheeler asked if they could build a deck that was not as deep and large. Engineer Woodroof stated that as long as it is built within the envelope.
Board Member Gardner made a motion to deny this request, Board Member Aldred seconded.
Mr. Ray Kash, Newmark Homes, asked if they could take a different route and apply for a variance for each of these homes? Engineer Woodroof stated that anyone can come before this Board if they follow the proper procedure.
Mr. Howell stated that previously criteria was mentioned to approve a variance, what are these criteria? Chair Haines and Engineer Woodroof explained this criteria.
Mr. Hopper asked that if he requested a variance for each of these homes what would be the time frame that they could be heard. Engineer Woodroof stated that the information must be into Town Hall 21 days prior to the meeting.
Ms. Richmond asked if there would be a chance that a variance would be allowed? Engineer Woodroof stated it is a possibility if the criteria is met.
The vote was then taken with Board Members Aldred, Felts, Gardner and Haines to deny this request and Board Member Lawson voted against. The board agreed that Staff’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was correct.
The meeting adjourned at 7:44.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, May 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Counsel Bob Notestine, Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof. Applicant Stacy Rawls and no other citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 2005, Commission Lawson seconded. It was noted that two spelling corrections needed to be made on page two, paragraph 6. Gardner and opposed were misspelled. With these corrections the minutes were approved unanimously.
A request was made by the applicant to this Board for a conditional use of car wash at 7211 Nolensville Road. Engineer Woodroof noted they were before this board last month. The conditional use is before this board. If approval is granted it will the go before the Planning Commission.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve, Board member Aldred seconded and this variance was approved unanimously.
Board member Aldred asked counsel if other applicants could have their applications streamlined so they do not have to come before this board numerous times. Engineer Woodroof stated that due to this situation and ordinances being passed that pertained to carwashes, this would procedure was best for this applicant. Counsel stated that it could have requested a variance and conditional use in one meeting.
Mr. Rawls then asked the board about the 70’ maximum set back from Nolensville Road. He asked if the state widens the road would that affect the set-backs. Engineer Woodroof stated that the permission to move the building would have to go before this board. The decision would be based on the current road construction. There was extensive discussion on the 70’ set back and the process of going before the Planning Commission in May and June.
The meeting adjourned at 7:17.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Hall, May 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Counsel Bob Notestine, Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof. Applicant Stacy Rawls and no other citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 2005, Commission Lawson seconded. It was noted that two spelling corrections needed to be made on page two, paragraph 6. Gardner and opposed were misspelled. With these corrections the minutes were approved unanimously.
A request was made by the applicant to this Board for a conditional use of car wash at 7211 Nolensville Road. Engineer Woodroof noted they were before this board last month. The conditional use is before this board. If approval is granted it will the go before the Planning Commission.
Board member Gardner made a motion to approve, Board member Aldred seconded and this variance was approved unanimously.
Board member Aldred asked counsel if other applicants could have their applications streamlined so they do not have to come before this board numerous times. Engineer Woodroof stated that due to this situation and ordinances being passed that pertained to carwashes, this would procedure was best for this applicant. Counsel stated that it could have requested a variance and conditional use in one meeting.
Mr. Rawls then asked the board about the 70’ maximum set back from Nolensville Road. He asked if the state widens the road would that affect the set-backs. Engineer Woodroof stated that the permission to move the building would have to go before this board. The decision would be based on the current road construction. There was extensive discussion on the 70’ set back and the process of going before the Planning Commission in May and June.
The meeting adjourned at 7:17.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, March 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present Counsel Dave Ausbrooks, Engineer Rich Woodroof and Recorder Cindy Lancaster.
The meeting was opened with Chair Haines stating the guidelines set forth for the hearing.
Board Member Lawson made a motion to approve minutes from February 8, 2005, Board Member Aldred second and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines noted that the first item of business was in regards to a proposed Car Wash at 7211 Nolensville Road. Mr. Stacy Rawls, representative of the Car Wash, noted that he is before this board for the second time and is requesting a variance for an eight-foot wall surrounding the proposed building. He noted that they felt it would hide and promote crime versus deterring crime. He presented a drawing to the commission and noted it would be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Engineer Woodroof stated that at the last Planning Commission and Board of Mayor and Aldermen these changes are being initiated to remove the wall and there would be a second reading and public hearing forthcoming.
Board Member Aldred asked if they would be moving forward with the landscaping. Mr. Rawls stated that this would be going before the Planning Commission and they would adhere to their requirements.
Board Member Aldred made a motion to grant the variance to remove requirement for an eight-foot wall. Board Member Felts seconded and this passed unanimously.
Board Member Felts stated that he would be recusing himself for the next item of business due to his relationship with the individuals that are making the request.
Mr. Ryan Workman with Alley and Associates Engineering stated that his client, Vern Patterson with Patterson Auto, at 7215 Nolensville Road, was here to request a variance to construct a building to cover an existing building and enhance the aesthetics with this site. Additionally, the request is to finish the floor elevation equal to the 100-year flood plain.
Engineer Woodroof, referred to Section 5.5.2 within the zoning ordinance addressing the existing building and showing the floor is in the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Workman was asked if the current slab was the same size as the requested building. Mr. Patterson stated that it is approximately three-quarters of the size. He stated that he would like to fix the driveway also. Mr. Workman reiterated that it would contribute greatly to the aesthetics of the building.
Board Member Gardner made a motion to approve the variance, Board Member Lawson seconded. Chair Haines noted that the existing square footage is 1,500 square feet, with an additional 1,000 living quarters. The proposed addition is approximate 1,800 square feet. Engineer Woodroof then noted that a sprinkler system must be installed if the entire building is more than 2,500 square feet. He further noted that the parking lot is in the floodplain and cannot be raised.
Board Member Lawson asked about the drainage ditch and requested the location on the map. Mr. Workman stated that it was not on this map.
Counsel Ausbrooks noted that section 5.5.2 B allows for flood proof or above 3 foot. This Board of Zoning Appeals may need to inquire about this issue.
Board Member Gardner noted that they would not have access to the building if it were flood proofed. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that you could have flood proof doors.
Mr. Patterson stated that he had spoke to the Corps of Engineers and noted that he could not move water. Board Member Gardner stated that the doors would have to be flood proofed to grant a variance. Counsel Ausbrooks stated that he just noted there were two options and inquiry should be made to see if both cannot be met.
Mr. Workman noted that the reason for the ordinance is for safety. In lieu of water proofing the doors, it could be reviewed to get the chemicals and other hazardous materials off the floor to eliminate the possibility of being swept away by a flood.
Board Member Gardner asked counsel if they were willing to flood proof the doors would a variance be needed? Counsel Ausbrooks stated that if they flood proof the area of building in the three foot they do not need a variance. Board Member Gardner stated that they might want to review the cost of this endeavor. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that it is not appropriate for this commission to advise applicants of options. They are allowed to withdraw their request. He further noted that a variance could be granted with stipulations. Board Member Gardner asked if the variance was granted, could construction begin. Engineer Woodroof stated no, the applicant must first present a site plan.
Chair Haines noted that under section 9.2.4 is the criteria for granting a variance. These were addressed and the vote was taken to grant the variance, the variance passed unanimously with four votes for and one, Board Member Felts recused himself.
The meeting was then adjourned at 7:45.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Town Hall, March 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present Counsel Dave Ausbrooks, Engineer Rich Woodroof and Recorder Cindy Lancaster.
The meeting was opened with Chair Haines stating the guidelines set forth for the hearing.
Board Member Lawson made a motion to approve minutes from February 8, 2005, Board Member Aldred second and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines noted that the first item of business was in regards to a proposed Car Wash at 7211 Nolensville Road. Mr. Stacy Rawls, representative of the Car Wash, noted that he is before this board for the second time and is requesting a variance for an eight-foot wall surrounding the proposed building. He noted that they felt it would hide and promote crime versus deterring crime. He presented a drawing to the commission and noted it would be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Engineer Woodroof stated that at the last Planning Commission and Board of Mayor and Aldermen these changes are being initiated to remove the wall and there would be a second reading and public hearing forthcoming.
Board Member Aldred asked if they would be moving forward with the landscaping. Mr. Rawls stated that this would be going before the Planning Commission and they would adhere to their requirements.
Board Member Aldred made a motion to grant the variance to remove requirement for an eight-foot wall. Board Member Felts seconded and this passed unanimously.
Board Member Felts stated that he would be recusing himself for the next item of business due to his relationship with the individuals that are making the request.
Mr. Ryan Workman with Alley and Associates Engineering stated that his client, Vern Patterson with Patterson Auto, at 7215 Nolensville Road, was here to request a variance to construct a building to cover an existing building and enhance the aesthetics with this site. Additionally, the request is to finish the floor elevation equal to the 100-year flood plain.
Engineer Woodroof, referred to Section 5.5.2 within the zoning ordinance addressing the existing building and showing the floor is in the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Workman was asked if the current slab was the same size as the requested building. Mr. Patterson stated that it is approximately three-quarters of the size. He stated that he would like to fix the driveway also. Mr. Workman reiterated that it would contribute greatly to the aesthetics of the building.
Board Member Gardner made a motion to approve the variance, Board Member Lawson seconded. Chair Haines noted that the existing square footage is 1,500 square feet, with an additional 1,000 living quarters. The proposed addition is approximate 1,800 square feet. Engineer Woodroof then noted that a sprinkler system must be installed if the entire building is more than 2,500 square feet. He further noted that the parking lot is in the floodplain and cannot be raised.
Board Member Lawson asked about the drainage ditch and requested the location on the map. Mr. Workman stated that it was not on this map.
Counsel Ausbrooks noted that section 5.5.2 B allows for flood proof or above 3 foot. This Board of Zoning Appeals may need to inquire about this issue.
Board Member Gardner noted that they would not have access to the building if it were flood proofed. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that you could have flood proof doors.
Mr. Patterson stated that he had spoke to the Corps of Engineers and noted that he could not move water. Board Member Gardner stated that the doors would have to be flood proofed to grant a variance. Counsel Ausbrooks stated that he just noted there were two options and inquiry should be made to see if both cannot be met.
Mr. Workman noted that the reason for the ordinance is for safety. In lieu of water proofing the doors, it could be reviewed to get the chemicals and other hazardous materials off the floor to eliminate the possibility of being swept away by a flood.
Board Member Gardner asked counsel if they were willing to flood proof the doors would a variance be needed? Counsel Ausbrooks stated that if they flood proof the area of building in the three foot they do not need a variance. Board Member Gardner stated that they might want to review the cost of this endeavor. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that it is not appropriate for this commission to advise applicants of options. They are allowed to withdraw their request. He further noted that a variance could be granted with stipulations. Board Member Gardner asked if the variance was granted, could construction begin. Engineer Woodroof stated no, the applicant must first present a site plan.
Chair Haines noted that under section 9.2.4 is the criteria for granting a variance. These were addressed and the vote was taken to grant the variance, the variance passed unanimously with four votes for and one, Board Member Felts recused himself.
The meeting was then adjourned at 7:45.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, February 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Member absent was Larry Felts. Staff present was Counsel Dave Ausbrooks, and Recorder Cindy Lancaster. Applicant Stacy Rawls, Trevon Townsend, Roy Dale and 8 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2004, Commission Lawson seconded and this was passed unanimously.
Chair Haines outlined the procedure of the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Stacy Rawls stated that the timing was critical and in order to move forward with his project he needed to verify how the ordinance applied to his request. He noted that Trevon Townsend had previously submitted a plan for a car wash and they knew that a variance request would be forthcoming. He stated that prior to submitting further money into this project he wanted to obtain approval from this board.
He further noted that he had submitted in writing three areas of concern. The board had this written documentation before them.
Commissioner Gardner stated that he could not understand why this request was before this entity prior to being heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rawls stated that he knew that a variance would have to be requested and the codes department stated that this order of process would be satisfactory.
Chair Haines stated that this board must base their decision on the ordinance that is written and a variance cannot be granted if it does not meet this ordinance.
Mr. Rawls stated that it was his understanding that a variance could be granted based upon four criteria.
Mr. Ausbrooks clarified noting that it must meet all four criteria, not one or two.
Mr. Rawls asked if this request should proceed.
Mr. Ausbrooks stated that we are not permitted by law to review. There needs to be a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. In regards to Roman numeral I on your request, you do not have the material.
Mr. Rawls then asked for clarification on Roman Numeral II. He noted that based on Mr. Townsend’s earlier request, he needed a better understanding of “enclosure”. Chair Haines then read section 2.3.22 of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Aldred asked if he had pictures. He distributed pictures and showed where a vacuum was accessible and open. Additionally, he had a concept drawing to show an alternative to an enclosure. He noted that if an 8’ wall were required this project would not move forward.
Counsel Ausbrooks stated that he felt the concept meets the criteria in regards to the bay, although this should be presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawls stated that he is willing to go about and beyond to make it ascetically pleasing.
Counsel noted that it appeared that it would comply, although he could not speak for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Aldred suggested showing the drawing to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawls stated that he would prefer an attendant on duty versus an attendant on site. Mr. Rawls noted the safety concern he had for an attendant working. He stated it would be easier for a crime to be committed upon the attendant. He further stated that it places the business into a payroll situation that is not required for a self-service business. He noted that you can purchase gas, pick up your mail and obtain money from an ATM without an attendant and these are self-service establishments.
Commissioner Aldred stated that she does not feel there needs to be an attendant, and this variance should be granted.
Counsel cautioned the board on rewriting the ordinance. Chair Haines stated that this board cannot rewrite the ordinance. It was noted that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to change the Ordinance.
Mr. Rawls had various questions and was somewhat confused on the various government bodies and their roles.
Mr. Roy Dale, Engineer for Mr. Rawls, asked which part of the TCA outlines variances. Counsel stated that he did not have that particular information before him. Mr. Dale stated that he had never heard that all criteria must be met in order to obtain a variance. Counsel noted that in 9.2.4 of the town zoning ordinance sets out the guidelines of granting a variance. This states that all four criteria must be met.
Mrs. Rawls stated that she felt they had wasted this boards time with this request. Counsel assured her to not feel that way. The zoning ordinance is a “living document” and can be changed.
Mr. Townsend stated that it appears they have gone out of order and stated someone should have told them the correct process. He noted that now the project is three months behind. He asked if there was anyway this could be expedited. The process of changing an ordinance was noted as being four months. The Planning Commission makes recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and there are two readings with a public hearing.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to adjourn at 7:58, Commissioner Aldred seconded and this passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
Town Hall, February 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Member absent was Larry Felts. Staff present was Counsel Dave Ausbrooks, and Recorder Cindy Lancaster. Applicant Stacy Rawls, Trevon Townsend, Roy Dale and 8 citizens.
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Chair Haines led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2004, Commission Lawson seconded and this was passed unanimously.
Chair Haines outlined the procedure of the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Stacy Rawls stated that the timing was critical and in order to move forward with his project he needed to verify how the ordinance applied to his request. He noted that Trevon Townsend had previously submitted a plan for a car wash and they knew that a variance request would be forthcoming. He stated that prior to submitting further money into this project he wanted to obtain approval from this board.
He further noted that he had submitted in writing three areas of concern. The board had this written documentation before them.
Commissioner Gardner stated that he could not understand why this request was before this entity prior to being heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rawls stated that he knew that a variance would have to be requested and the codes department stated that this order of process would be satisfactory.
Chair Haines stated that this board must base their decision on the ordinance that is written and a variance cannot be granted if it does not meet this ordinance.
Mr. Rawls stated that it was his understanding that a variance could be granted based upon four criteria.
Mr. Ausbrooks clarified noting that it must meet all four criteria, not one or two.
Mr. Rawls asked if this request should proceed.
Mr. Ausbrooks stated that we are not permitted by law to review. There needs to be a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. In regards to Roman numeral I on your request, you do not have the material.
Mr. Rawls then asked for clarification on Roman Numeral II. He noted that based on Mr. Townsend’s earlier request, he needed a better understanding of “enclosure”. Chair Haines then read section 2.3.22 of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Aldred asked if he had pictures. He distributed pictures and showed where a vacuum was accessible and open. Additionally, he had a concept drawing to show an alternative to an enclosure. He noted that if an 8’ wall were required this project would not move forward.
Counsel Ausbrooks stated that he felt the concept meets the criteria in regards to the bay, although this should be presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawls stated that he is willing to go about and beyond to make it ascetically pleasing.
Counsel noted that it appeared that it would comply, although he could not speak for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Aldred suggested showing the drawing to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawls stated that he would prefer an attendant on duty versus an attendant on site. Mr. Rawls noted the safety concern he had for an attendant working. He stated it would be easier for a crime to be committed upon the attendant. He further stated that it places the business into a payroll situation that is not required for a self-service business. He noted that you can purchase gas, pick up your mail and obtain money from an ATM without an attendant and these are self-service establishments.
Commissioner Aldred stated that she does not feel there needs to be an attendant, and this variance should be granted.
Counsel cautioned the board on rewriting the ordinance. Chair Haines stated that this board cannot rewrite the ordinance. It was noted that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to change the Ordinance.
Mr. Rawls had various questions and was somewhat confused on the various government bodies and their roles.
Mr. Roy Dale, Engineer for Mr. Rawls, asked which part of the TCA outlines variances. Counsel stated that he did not have that particular information before him. Mr. Dale stated that he had never heard that all criteria must be met in order to obtain a variance. Counsel noted that in 9.2.4 of the town zoning ordinance sets out the guidelines of granting a variance. This states that all four criteria must be met.
Mrs. Rawls stated that she felt they had wasted this boards time with this request. Counsel assured her to not feel that way. The zoning ordinance is a “living document” and can be changed.
Mr. Townsend stated that it appears they have gone out of order and stated someone should have told them the correct process. He noted that now the project is three months behind. He asked if there was anyway this could be expedited. The process of changing an ordinance was noted as being four months. The Planning Commission makes recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and there are two readings with a public hearing.
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to adjourn at 7:58, Commissioner Aldred seconded and this passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Lancaster
