close menu
This website uses cookies to store your accessibility preferences. No personal / identifying information is stored. More info.

2006

Minutes Archive

2006-12 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, December 12, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Joe Curtsinger, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson.  Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof.  Applicants Austin Pennington and Mr. Christopher Kleczynski of 3325 Redmon Hill Lane were in attendance.  Six citizens were present.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the minutes from November 14, 2006, Commissioner Lawson seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines asked for citizen’s comment.  Applicant Mr. Austin Pennington representing McFarlin Woods asked the Commission to defer his request until next month.  He has further data that he will have available at that time.  Commissioner Gardner made a motion to defer until January meeting, Commissioner Aldred second and this passed unanimously.
 
Mr. Christopher Kleczynski, 3325 Redmon Hill Lane requested a variance to build a 12 X 20 deck.  He stated that he had began construction of this deck without seeking the proper permits through the town.  He stated that he had purchased a hot tub and began construction of a deck.  Mr. Blanks, Town of Nolensville Building Inspector, stopped and notified him that he would have to cease construction until permits were issued.  He stated that he was building the deck to protect children and individuals that may have access to the hot tub.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance, Commissioner Gardner seconded.
 
Commissioner Aldred asked the Town Engineer if he knew the regulations on hot tubs.  Engineer Woodroof stated that he did not know the regulations and would have to research this in the building code.
 
There was extensive discussion on fencing the yard.
 
Commissioner Gardner noted that the deck would be approximately three feet from the property line.  Mr. Kleczynski noted that he has argued with the builder over the validity of the property line.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that he has a problem with granting this variance.  He stated that the builder is aware that a deck of this size cannot be constructed on this lot.  That is the reason a patio is constructed at that location and not a deck.
 
Commissioner Lawson inquired to Engineer Woodroof’s recommendation.  Engineer Woodroof stated that this is a Board of Zoning Appeals decision.
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that there had never been a request that would be this close to the property line.
 
Counsel Notestine stated that due to the shape of this lot it would be difficult for him to build a deck anywhere else on the property.
 
There was much discussion on the hot tub and the construction of a fence.  Commissioner Curtsinger stated that the hot tub is not the issue in this request.  The applicant has requested a variance for a deck.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that he was sorry that Mr. Kleczynski had pursued construction on the deck, although there was a patio currently at that location.  Commissioner Curtsinger stated that this opens the door to go to a “zero” lot line.
 
Mr. Kleczynski asked the board if he cut two foot off of the deck and brought it in line with the patio, would that be acceptable.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger inquired to the difference between a patio and a deck.
 
Engineer Woodroof stated that a deck is viewed as a structure.  He stated that if there is a fire it could be an obstruction.
 
Mr. Joseph Tiratto, neighbor of Mr. Kleczynski, asked if it made any difference that his backyard faces a common area.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he felt this would be interpreted as the property line and not the common area.
 
Mr. Kleczynski noted that this would be a hardship for him.  Commissioner Gardner stated that it was hard for him to see the hardship due to the patio being in that location.
 
Chairman Haines made a motion to amend to allow a 10 X 20 deck to be constructed, with 48 inch approved fencing and self latching spring loaded lock, Commissioner Lawson seconded.
 
Engineer Woodroof noted that when application is made for the permit, the hot tub criteria must be met by the International Building Code.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he felt the ultimate question is, “was this self-imposed.”  He noted that this homeowner may not be able to have a hot tub.
 
Chairman Haines withdrew his motion, Commissioner Lawson withdrew the second.  Chairman Haines made a motion to allow a 10 X 20 deck be constructed, with all applicable building codes being met, Commissioner Lawson seconded.  The vote was taken with Chairman Haines and Commissioner Lawson for, Commissioners Aldred, Curtsinger and Gardner against.  The amended motion failed due to the lack of a majority vote.
 
Mr. Kleczynski stated that he found this very troubling that this has been addressed before and allowed under the hardship criteria.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that two previous request were due to the door of the home being far off of the ground.  This request was to construct a larger deck.
 
Mr. Kleczynski stated that three other residents were granted variances since October of 2005.
 
Counsel Notestine noted that each variance case stands on its own merit and taken under consideration individually.
 
The vote was taken to allow a variance to construct a 12 X 20 deck.  Chairman Haines and Commissioner Lawson voted for, Commissioners Aldred, Curtsinger and Gardner against.  The motion to allow a variance failed due to the lack of a majority vote.
 
Mr. Kleczynski asked the commission for their reason.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that he did not see a hardship and felt it was self imposed.  It would put the deck on the property line and a patio currently exist.
 
Counsel Notestine noted that 9.2.5 states that the standards that are not met must be specified.  Commissioner Aldred stated that a patio is there.  Commissioner Curtsinger stated that the house was constructed with a patio to meet the town’s code.  This is why there is not a deck constructed on this lot.
 
Chairman Haines stated that due to the house location, the deck would make this lot a zero lot line.  Your situation is working with zero inches and other request had 8 feet.
 
Mr. Kleczynski stated that this home should have never been approved to be constructed on this lot.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he is not the only resident that would like a hot tub.  He stated that he would like to see and review the regulations on hot tubs.  Engineer Woodroof stated that he would research, although he would not think a hot tub could go outside the building envelope.  Commissioner Aldred stated that this Commission needs those rules and regulations.
 
Counsel Notestine stated that the variance request is for the construction of a deck.  The hot tub is not the request.
 
Mr. Kleczynski asked for Commissioner Curtsinger’s opinion for denial.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that it is not allowed.  The standard is a patio and that is why the builder did not construct a deck.
 
Counsel Notestine advised the applicant that there is no other remedy allowed at the town level.  He could seek legal advice and be heard in a court of law.
 
Ms. Tricia Wilkens, stated that they had received notice about a variance request in regards to underground utilities.  She was here tonight to inquire about this request.
 
Engineer Woodroof stated that they are requesting to have above ground utilities and not underground.  He stated that this applicant has requested to be deferred tonight and will be heard next month.
 
The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:55 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2006-11 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, November 14, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson.  Member absent was Joe Curtsinger.  Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster and Engineer Rich Woodroof.  Applicants Jim Howell and Donald Wheeler were in attendance.  Six citizens were present.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the minutes from October 10, 2006, Commissioner Lawson seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines asked for citizen’s comment.  There were no comments from the audience.  Chair Haines proceeded to address the citizens on the Board of Zoning Appeals role and the procedures of this process.
 
Mr. Donald Wheeler identified himself as the property owner of 5012 Burke Trail.  Mr. and Mrs. Jim Howell identified themselves as the property owners of 5016 Burke Trail.
 
Engineer Woodroof stated that these are request that have been addressed previously by Newmark Homes.  He noted that this board had previously granted a variance for an 8 X 10 deck.  The homeowners are here tonight to request this to be enlarged.
 
Commissioner Gardner reiterated that this board had previously granted a variance.  Engineer Woodroof showed the board the final plat that was approved for Bent Creek.
 
Mr. Wheeler noted that he would like to increase his deck to 10 X 20.
 
Chair Haines noted that the important issue to him was to not grant a variance that would allow a deck to encroach into the neighbor’s property.  Engineer Woodroof stated that it would not go into the neighbor’s property.
 
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to allow this applicant to build a 10 X 20 deck, Commissioner Aldred seconded.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked the number of variances that were granted to the builder, Newmark.  Engineer Woodroof stated that three variances were granted.  Commissioner Gardner asked if this variance is granted, is there a possibility others will follow.  Engineer Woodroof stated that anyone can come before this board that has a request which deviates from the zoning ordinance.
 
Commissioner Lawson stated that he had viewed a deck and would like to request that the resident stay within the side of the home. He suggested that they build the deck over the steps.  Chair Haines stated that as long as they stay within the setbacks.
 
Commissioner Aldred stated that she does not see a problem with a deck being built due to the home backing up to open space.  A problem may arise when a resident’s home backs up to other homes.
 
Chair Haines restated the motion noting that the variance could be granted under Section 9.2.4 (d) of the ordinance.
 
The vote was taken with Chair Haines, Commissioner Aldred and Lawson for, Commissioner Gardner against.  The variance was granted by majority vote.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to grant a variance for the property at 5016 Burke Trail to increase the deck size to 10 X 20, under Section 9.2.4 (d) of the ordinance.  Commissioner Lawson seconded.  The vote was taken with Chair Haines, Commissioner Aldred and Lawson for, Commissioner Gardner against.  The variance was granted by majority vote.
 
Engineer Woodroof noted that a building permit would have to be obtained prior to construction.
 
The owners thanked the board.
 
Chair Haines made a motion to adjourn, Commissioner Aldred seconded.  The meeting adjourned at 7:20.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2006-10 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, October 10, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Joe Curtsinger, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson.  Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof and Counsel Robert J. Notestine.  Applicant Tony Lopacinski was in attendance.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the minutes from September 12, 2006, Commissioner Gardner seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines noted that there were no citizen’s comments and then asked if the applicant would like to address the commission.
 
Mr. Tony Lopancinski identified himself as the property owner.  He stated that his wife had completed the application.
 
Engineer Woodroof stated that Mr. Lopacinski noted that the applicant at 2082 Delaware Drive in Winterset Woods would like to build a deck on rear of the house.  The builder built the home too close to the set back lines.  The rear property is a large open space and a buffer zone is on the south west side of the property line.  The deck will encroach approximately ten feet on the rear making the rear set back, twenty feet from the open space.
 
Engineer Woodroof noted the difference and restrictions between the Bent Creek Subdivision and Ballenger Farm Subdivision.  He stated that Bent Creek has 15-foot setbacks with Ballenger Farms having 20-foot setbacks.  He feels there is a difference of approximate ten feet in the county regulations versus the Town of Nolensville.
 
Commissioner Aldred stated that if this board is going to continually give a variance for this issued, the zoning ordinance should be revised to reflect this change.  Engineer Woodroof stated that this house is unique, due to this home being the only constructed in that development with a basement.  He stated that he is not saying that this will not open up request of this nature for the future, but the ten-foot play is area that could be built on.
 
Mr. Lopancinski stated that lot is on a dead end.  It will eventually go through to Bennington Subdivision.  It is open space and there will not be any building behind his home.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger asked him what his understanding was when he purchased the home.
 
Mr. Lopancinski stated that the first knowledge that he had of this situation, was when he performed the walk through the door was dead bolted and had no deck.
 
Engineer Woodroof stated that on February 14, 2005 the permit was pulled.  On August 1, 2006 it was determined that the town’s code was different than the county’s code.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that his concern is that Pulte was aware of this issue.  They are coming back after they were granted a variance previously with a similar situation.
 
Engineer Woodroof verified the dates again for the board.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that he felt they knew this and passed this situation off to the homeowner.  Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he felt this problem appears to present itself again.
 
Mr. Lopancinski stated that he did the walk through in August.  At that time he was told they we needed to go before this body.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked if this variance were granted, who would construct the deck.  Mr. Lopancinski stated that Pulte would be doing the construction.  Commissioner Curtsinger asked if it is not granted what are his intentions.  Mr. Lopancinski stated that he would be forced to hire a lawyer.
 
Commissioner Lawson pointed to sections 5.6.2, 9.2.4. (A), 9.2.4(D).  He suggested to staff to write a letter to the builders informing them of our regulations.
 
There was extensive discussion on the builder’s obligation in addition to the issue of this development being approved under the county code.
 
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve this variance to allow a 10 X 16 deck to be built with steps to lead off the side and the deck cannot be more than 10 foot.  Commissioner Lawson seconded and this was approved unanimously.  The vote was then taken on the variance as amended.  This passed unanimously.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger reiterated that this is a serious issue that needs to go before the Planning Commission.  He stated that Engineer Woodroof needs to notify Pulte Homes of this issue also.  He stated that when the permit was pulled on February 14, it was inside the city limits at that time.
 
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2006-09 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, September 12, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Joe Curtsinger, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Engineer Rich Woodroof and Counsel Robert J. Notestine. Applicant Patrick Martin and one citizen.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the minutes from August 8, 2006, Commissioner Gardner seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines noted that there were no citizen’s comments and then asked if the applicant would like to address the commission.
 
Mr. Patrick Martin was in attendance and noted that he is renting a building from Mr. Vern Patterson who is doing extensive work on the building. Mr. Don Swartz came by and noted that if an extension would be built Mr. Martin would need to go before the BZA to request a variance for the bulk regulations for side yard setback, which is five foot minimum. Mr. Martin stated that he has a problem with bird feces and foreign items coming in to the cooking area. He stated that he would like to be serviceable and look nice. He noted that he would not construct anything that was load bearing and if the town needed that area he could have it taken down within six hours.
 
Town Engineer Woodroof stated that Mr. Patterson has an approved site plan that he is working toward completion. He noted that Mr. Martin is requesting that on the south side of the building an extension of the roof be built and an enclosure. This will violate the bulk regulations for side yard setback in the CS zone, which is a five-foot minimum.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked if a permit had been pulled for the extension that was built by the El Texano Restaurant. Engineer Woodroof stated that he would have to pull this information. Commission Gardner stated that his concern is if a building is constructed next door it would be difficult to deny a request from them, if they choose to make a similar request. He noted this is against the standard.
 
Mr. Martin noted that one of the first things that he noticed was the bird droppings in that area. He noted that he could operate without the addition, although it would make it easier to keep clean. He asked the commission if they would consider allowing the variance with the agreement that if it needed to come down at a later date, the town would allow him 48 hours to have it removed.
 
Counsel Notestine noted the criteria to grant a variance. He further stated that it is his understanding concrete was poured in that area. Mr. Martin stated that previous tenants killed goats in that area and the smell was horrific. It was so bad that concrete had to be poured over the area to eliminate the odor.
 
Commissioner Gardner made a motion for approval, Commissioner Curtsinger seconded.
 
Mr. Martin then asked the board if this is approved, would he have to construct it immediately. Counsel noted that a variance can be considered on four criteria with any of the four conditions being met. In reading the criteria, Counsel stated that he could see two criteria that this request met. Counsel Notestine noted that it does not have to be constructed immediately, although he urged the board to make the motion very specific.
 
Commissioner Gardner noted that the five-foot bulk standard is in the ordinance and that should be adhered to.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he felt it would be hard to obtain a temporary variance. He then asked counsel if it would harm the public welfare with the problems at hand in regards to sanitation if it is not granted.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked if the restaurant sells, could a new establishment place tables under that area?
 
Mr. Martin again asked if he removed the structure within the timeframe that the town wishes, could he be granted this variance.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger asked if he needed this addition immediately. If not, would he be opposed to returning with this request at a later date.
 
Mr. Martin stated that he wanted it clean and to keep the weather out. He noted that he had obtained a line of credit and wanted to get everything taken care of at this time. He stated that he could re-approach the board at a later date.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger asked Counsel if he withdrew the request, could it be brought back anytime, versus if this applicant is denied. It was noted that if the request was denied, the applicant could not reapply for one year. If the applicant withdraws the request, he could reapply at any point in time.
 
Mr. Martin then asked the board to withdraw his application.
 
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2006-08 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, August 8, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Joe Curtsinger, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Member Pat Aldred was absent. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster. Applicant Nancy Pentecost, Travis Rhodes and Mike Arnold of Pulte Homes were in attendance and no other citizens.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger made a motion to approve the minutes from May 9, 2006, Commissioner Lawson seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines noted that there were no citizen’s comments and then asked if the applicants would like to address the commission.
 
Ms. Nancy Pentecost noted that the request is to grant a variance for the garage setback to be extended. She stated that the concrete vendor boxed and poured the concrete slab as left-handed instead of right-handed as platted. This caused the garage to go over the 25’ setback by 1 foot and 9 inches at the left corner.
 
Mr. Travis Rhodes noted that Pulte had employed a new survey company. This company performed the surveys after pouring the concrete. This problem has been corrected and the surveys are now being performed prior to the pouring of concrete.
 
Commissioner Gardner stated that he had gone by the residence and it appeared to him that the sidelines are good and personally he did not see anything wrong with this request. He noted that mistakes would happen.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he felt this is a warning sign for Pulte Homes.
 
Chair Haines stated that legally he could not approve this request. He further stated that he was concerned with the driveway and parking condition.
 
Mr. Arnold stated that most all are aligned to have two-car parking and there is still ample room to park the cars.
 
Ms. Pentecost reiterated that the process has been changed to correct this from happening again.
 
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to approve the variance under Section 9.2.4 D with a warning accompanying this motion that this will not be tolerated in the future. Commissioner Lawson seconded this motion.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that he agreed with Chairman Haines in regards to the driveway issue and asked if there was going to be a sidewalk. Mr. Arnold, with Pulte Homes, stated that there is a sidewalk, although, per the plat, it ends prior to this particular lot.
 
The call for the vote was then moved with the variance passing by majority. Commissioners Curtsinger, Gardner and Lawson for, Chair Haines against.
 
The meeting adjourned at 7:15.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2006-05 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, May 9, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Joe Curtsinger, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Planner Henry Laird, and Counsel Robert Notestine.  Applicant Elza and Ruby Jones and no other citizens.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
 
Commission Curtsinger led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the minutes from November 8, 2005, Commission Lawson seconded and this passed unanimously.
 
Chair Haines noted that there were no citizen’s comments and added that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Jones were in attendance.
 
Chair Haines then asked if the applicants would like to address the commission. Mr. Jones stated that he was the property owner at 6947 Nolensville Road and has been for approximately 50 years. He stated that currently a garden center is located at this address with an auto repair shop adjacent. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Smith, the individual who is currently renting the landscape business from him, would like to expand his establishment. They feel that this will only enhance the area. Mr. Jones referred to Section C of the by-laws addressing traffic. It was noted that the garden center has been in this location for the past approximate six years. Mr. Jones stated that if this request is denied, they may lose the income from this property, due to the Smith’s seeking another location to meet their needs in regards to size.
 
Commissioner Lawson asked how long has it been since the garage operated there? Mr. Jones stated that approximately 45 days ago the lease was broken. Mr. Jones stated that they were not in compliance with the city, due to cars being painted at this location.
 
Commissioner Gardner inquired to the reason that this request was referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Planner Laird stated that Mr. Smith came to the town to request for an expansion. In reading the ordinance, staff is not allowed to grant permission for a change of use. He noted that previously Mr. Jones referred to the by-laws, although this should have been reference to Tennessee Code Annotated 13-7-208 C.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked if the variance is granted and the landscape company moves out, do they have to begin this process again. Counsel Notestine stated that they would.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked what is the current zoning? Mr. Laird stated that it is Suburban Residential (SR).
 
Commission Gardner asked if this would affect the interlocal agreement with Brentwood? Counsel Notestine stated that it is his opinion that this is a non-conforming use.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger asked what the landscaping business was considered under our zoning ordinance? He asked if it was classified as agriculture or retail? Mr. Laird was not sure of that classification.
 
Commissioner Gardner asked if a greenhouse would be at this location? Mr. Jones stated that he wasn’t sure if a green house would be constructed or not.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger asked if these are two separate lots, or are they one continuous lot on the deed? Mr. Jones stated that there is only one deed, but the property taxes are paid separately. Counsel Notestine stated that there is no issue if it is one lot.
 
Commissioner Curtsinger stated that the issue is the non-conforming use and will it have come back for site plan approval. Mr. Laird stated that Mr. Smith should apply for a site plan by this Thursday. Commissioner Curtsinger stated that the applicant must be made aware of the correct process.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve this variance, Commissioner Aldred seconded.
 
Commissioner Haines made a motion to amend, noting approval of this variance under the section of 9.2.4 D of the zoning ordinance, Commissioner Aldred seconded. Commissioner Curtsinger inquired to counsel to verify that a reason must be noted. Counsel Notestine stated that state law requires a reason to be given. This was passed unanimously.
 
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to amend, noting that approval be given with the condition that a site plan must be submitted and approved by staff or planning commission, Commissioner Aldred seconded. This was passed unanimously.
 
The vote was then taken for the approval of this variance as amended and passed unanimously.
 
The meeting adjourned at 7:25.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder