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

2007

Minutes Archive

2007-11 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
November 8, 2007
7:00 p.m.

Members present:       Chair Bob Haines, Members Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson and Ken Norman

Members absent:        Brian Truman

Staff present:              Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department, Town Planner Henry Laird and Town Attorney Robert Notestine

Applicant present:       Joseph G. Petrosky, P.E. was present, and one citizen in attendance.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes:
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from July 12, 2007, and Commission Lawson seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved.

Announcements:
Chair Haines asked that all cell phones be placed on vibrate and then went over the procedures of the meeting.

Citizen Comments:
There were no citizen’s comments.

New Business:    

Chair Haines asked Mr. Laird to make the presentation.  Mr. Laird stated the applicant is proposing to develop a 28,000 square foot office/warehouse building complex in the SE quadrant of Haley Industrial Drive and Rogers Lane intersection.  They are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance Appendix B, Section 1.5.4D, that requires a 5-foot landscape strip between the building and off-street parking area.  They propose to provide as an alternative landscape improvements consisting of planters and benches.  They have submitted plans and an illustration board showing this alternative.  He stated Mr. Joseph Petrosky was present to answer any questions about this request.
The Planning Commission approved their site plan at its October 9, 2007 meeting with a condition that either the required 5-foot strip be incorporated into the site plan, or that the applicant would obtain a variance from this requirement from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Laird distributed copies of the zoning ordinance section in question.  He also presented illustrations of the proposed alternative method that was being requested.

Commissioner Norman asked if the proposed alternative would apply to all three buildings, and Mr. Laird stated yes.  Mr. Petrosky stated it was their intent to do all three buildings with the alternative landscape improvements.  The lot is on a corner and there is a 28-foot difference in elevation between the intersection of Hailey Industrial and Rogers Lane.  When they went out for a preliminary review, there was three to four feet of rock below the surface, so they attempted to do the grading plan in such a way to minimize the rock excavation as much as possible.  He stated they attempted to make this upper building a viable economic entity by allowing it to fit with the terrain in bringing it up where it will rise above and look over the other buildings.

With the storefront windows going all the way to the ground, the use of water for irrigation of landscaping against the glass would not be the best situation.

Chair Haines asked Mr. Petrosky to share the details of the proposed alternative landscaping plan.  Mr. Petrosky stated the plan is to use high quality planters and some hardscape with benches.  This would fit in this area and would provide a softening of the building.

Chair Haines stated it would also help with water runoff.   Mr. Petrosky stated there were plenty of parking spaces, and they would be more than willing to add some planter islands in the actual parking area with trees, etc. to soften the effect.

Commissioner Lawson asked if the Planning Commission had approved this project except for the landscaping, and Mr. Laird stated yes.

Commissioner Dugger asked if this plan failed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, then it would go back to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Laird stated that was right.  He stated the design of the building actually exceeds the town’s design requirements, and the developer has done a good job with this project.  He stated that the Chairman of the Design Review Commission has suggested that the same professional landscape company that did the rest of the project do this landscape alternative plan.  Mr. Petrosky stated that would not be a problem.

Commissioner Dugger asked about the width of the planters impeding the walkway.  Mr. Petrosky stated those parking spaces could be used for compact cars if necessary.  The benches will be placed where the columns are shown on the illustration.  The parking should not be an issue.

Commissioner Dugger asked about the hardship that required this alternative.  Chair Haines stated the irregular shape of the lot was one thing.  Mr. Petrosky stated there was a 28-foot change in elevation from one corner to the other.  The rock excavation made it a hardship also.  The loading dock is common for all three buildings and it is four feet higher.  It was raised for the use of the trucks and their forklifts for the overhead doors in the back of the buildings.  The real hardship is the shape of the lot and the rock excavation.

Commission Norman stated the only concern he saw was the amount of space to walk by the benches.  Chair Haines suggested an extra foot of concrete could be added where the benches are to be located.  Mr. Petrosky stated that would not be a problem and the spaces in front of the benches could be used for compact car parking.

Commissioner Dugger asked if the benches needed to be put in or just do the landscaping according to the ordinance and not do the alternative.  He stated he personally did not feel there was a hardship in this project.  He stated he had to look at it that the next person was going to come in and ask for a variance on the 5-foot landscaping strip.  He stated he understood that each individual variance request stands on its own merit.

Mr. Petrosky stated the adjacent building in the same industrial park, along with some other businesses that do not have the 5-foot landscape strip.

Chair Haines stated the Board has to be concerned with the parcel before it tonight.

Mr. Petrosky stated they would be willing to do anything they could to soften the front of the building.

Council Notestine pointed out that the BZA did not have the power to reconfigure the site plan because it has been approved by the Planning Commission.  The issue is whether or not to stay with the 5-foot landscape or stay or go with the hardscape that is being proposed and grant the variance.  He stated he looked at the ordinance regarding variances and it says two of the things that can be considered are the topography and the shape of the lot.  It says that you can consider those things, but you do not have to grant a variance.

Chair Haines asked for a motion.

Motion by Chair Haines, seconded by Mr. Norman, to approve.  Commissioner Dugger opposed the approval, and the other members approved the motion.

Adjournment:
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Simerson, Permit Specialist
2007-07 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Elementary School, July 12, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Members Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson and Brian Truman. Members absent were Ken Norman. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Building Official Michael Blanks and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicants Mr. Christopher Kleczvnski, property owner of 3324 Redmon Hill and Mr. Eric Pasalakis, property owner of 521 Dante Ranch Lane, and nine citizens were in attendance.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from May 10, 2007, noting that the minutes should reflect “Commissioner” Truman was absent not Chair. Commissioner Truman seconded. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.
 
Announcements:
 
Chair Haines asked that all cell phones be placed on vibrate and then went over the procedures of the meeting.
 
Citizen’s comments:
 
There were no citizen’s comments.
 
New business:
 
Chair Haines noted that the first order of business was an application for 3325 Redmon Hill. He asked the applicant if he would like to address the Board.
 
Mr. Christopher Kleczvnski, of 3325 Redmon Hill, stated that he is requesting a variance to build a 9’10” X 20’5” deck, which is outside of the building envelope by 9’7”. He noted the deck would be 5’5” from the property line and 20’ from the park behind his residence.
 
Mr. Michael Blanks stated that staff’s recommendation was for approval due to location of the pocket park.
 
Chair Haines asked if there were any further comments from the audience.
 
Alderman Joe Curtsinger, asked to speak noting this request had come before the board twice and has been denied each time with one being due to lack of a second. He stated that this violates the Codes of the Town in addition to the Homeowners Association’s Covenants that was approved by the Nolensville Planning Commission. He presented a copy of the Covenants for the Board’s review. Alderman Curtsinger stated that besides the fact that the Homeowners Association is Cates and Kottas until it is 80% occupied. Alderman Curtsinger then read segments of the Covenants. He stated that the next request the applicant will make is to build a roof over the deck. He stated that the Homeowners Association has not approved this. He noted that fences are permitted, but landscaping is specific.
 
Mr. Blanks clarified stating that the Town cannot enforce Homeowner Association Covenants.
 
Counsel Notestine noted that the Building Official is correct. He noted the Town is governed by its Codes and the Homeowners Association Covenants are a legal agreement between the homeowner and the Homeowner Association, not the Town.
 
Mr. Kleczvnski stated that he has permission from the Homeowners Association and did not feel that he needed to bring this document, although if this board would like a copy he would provide it.
 
Mr. Larry Gardner from the audience stated that the Town has to abide by its Code. The Code states that if an application is turned down it must go to Chancery Court. He noted that Counsel stated in the December meeting that the applicant must go to Chancery Court.
 
Counsel Notestine stated that this Board must determine if it is a different application and then it would be dealt with at that level.
 
Alderman Curtsinger stated that this issue is before the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to change the language. He stated that he has a problem with staff not enforcing the rules.
 
Chair Haines closed the public comment portion of the meeting and asked Mr. Kleczvnski if changes had been made since the last application. Mr. Klecznski stated that initially he did not obtain a building permit. He received a letter from Mr. Swartz and since then he has removed the structure. He noted that the main portion of the deck could not be altered due to the location of the spa. He stated that he had removed some boards to reduce the size of the deck and noted the patio is about 10 X 25. He stated this is a new application with a different deck size.
 
Commissioner Dugger said that the applicants last request was for a 10’X20’ deck and this request is lowered by 2 feet. Commissioner Dugger asked for clarification on a drawing. Mr. Kleczvnski noted that this was additional stairs in order to accommodate the landing to the deck. He noted that this request is for safety.
 
Commissioner Dugger stated that his concern was the pocket park adjacent to the applicant’s property. Mr. Kleczvnski stated that was his purpose for obtaining a petition from the neighborhood (that was submitted to the board) and a map showing the location of the residence. He stated that he has made a diligent effort to notify the neighbors of the construction of the deck. He noted that there is plenty of space behind him to accommodate this deck.
 
Commissioner Truman noted that he shared these same concerns. He noted that in a pocket park kids run and play, push and jump. Commissioner Dugger stated that there was a couple of swing sets with the closest rock being about 12 feet away from the new deck.
 
Commissioner Lawson said that he had reviewed the property and the property is sloped and is not comfortable to walk on. He noted that the slope continues about 3 feet from his property line. He stated that the developer narrowed it down for a sidewalk and this extends pass the applicants property line about 8 feet. Chair Haines asked if he felt that there was enough room from the property line to the park. Commissioner Lawson stated that a vehicle could not get up there.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve this variance request; Commissioner Truman seconded this motion stating after he reviewed the property today he was in agreement. Commissioner Dugger stated that his only concern was the closeness. The vote was then taken and was approved by majority with Chair Haines, Commissioners Truman and Lawson for, Commissioner Dugger against.
 
Mr. Eric Pasalakis, 521 Dante Ranch Lane, is requesting a variance to build a deck outside the building envelope. Mr. Pasalakis stated that he wanted to build a 10 X 19 foot deck. He noted that it will exceed the building envelope by 7’2” X 19’.
 
Mr. Michael Blanks stated that staff’s recommendation was for approval due to open space in the back yard.
 
The applicant stated that he was at the far end of the subdivision and no one can get behind his home. Chair Haines clarified the dimension of 10 feet by 19 feet.
 
Commissioner Truman stated that he had surveyed the property and there is plenty of ground behind the home. He further stated that it is not going to be where neighbors in the back would see.
 
Chair Haines made motion to approve, Commissioner Truman seconded. Commissioner Dugger stated that unlike the other case, this is different and unique and he can support this request. The vote was then taken and this was approved unanimously.
 
Commissioner Dugger made motion to adjourn, Commissioner Truman seconded and the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:41 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2007-05 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, May 10, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Tommy Dugger, and Charles Lawson. Members absent were Chairman Brian Truman. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Building Official Michael Blanks and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicants Mr. and Mrs. John and Terry Randow, property owner of 9940 Maxwell Lane, Mr. Haemmerlein, owner of Sunset Parks. Three citizens were present.
 
Chair Haines opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from April 12, 2007, Commissioner Aldred seconded. Commissioner Lawson amended the minutes on page one. The minutes should reflect widened instead of pave. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.
 
Announcements:
 
There were no announcements.
 
Citizen’s comments:
 
There were no citizen’s comments.
 
New business:
 
Mr. John Randow, and wife Terry, owner of 9940 Maxwell Lane is asking for a variance to add a mother’s apartment which will increase the existing square footage 572 square feet.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to approve the variance, Commissioner Lawson seconded. Commissioner Dugger noted for clarification, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 2.2.2 permitted with conditions and Section 2.3.1. D uses permitted with conditions. He noted that it states it shall be no larger than 600 square feet and they are requesting a total of 1,167 square feet.
 
Mr. Randow stated that this is for his elderly mother. He stated that once it is no longer needed it will then be turned into a dining area.
 
Commissioner Dugger said that permitted with conditions requires an additional parking area. Mr. Randow stated that they currently have an area for approximately 5 cars. He noted that the home is 310 feet from the road. Commissioner Dugger stated that would comply would 2.3.3. G, of the ordinance.
 
Counsel Notestine stated that this would meet the criteria to grant a variance. With no further questions the vote was taken with a unanimous vote to grant the variance request.
 
Counsel Notestine advised the applicant that the next step would be to obtain a building permit.
 
Due to the applicant being late the board recessed at 7:16.
 
The Board reconvened at 7:18.
 
A variance request was made to allow construction of two model homes prior to final plat submittal. Mr. Rob Haemmerlein, owner of Sunset Park (Tennessee Valley Homes) is asking for a variance to allow two model homes to be built in Sunset Park at the entrance of the subdivision. This would eliminate the need for a sales trailer. The final Plat has not been recorded.
 
Mr. Justin Franks, representing Sunset Properties, noted he was representing his company and Tennessee Valley Homes (his brother). The request is to build two homes and final plat is to be presented at the June Planning Commission meeting. He noted that there have been incredible time delays with Metro Sewer. Britain Downs and his development have been working together in exploring an alternate route for the sewer. He stated that due to this they had to acquire nine easements and this was a huge challenge. Everyone came on board and we are trying to recap some time and begin selling some homes. Mr. Franks stated that in lieu of putting up sales trailers, they would like to build a couple of model homes and get a 60 day jump. He stated that they can build the house in about three months and can utilize these versus trailers.
 
Commissioner Lawson asked if any streets were paved. Mr. Franks stated that currently they are not paved. He noted that some places will allow this. They call this prairie building. He noted that the risk is building the house in the wrong spot and then having to redo the roads.  He noted that his engineering is 100% and will sign a letter to protect the town.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve this variance, Commissioner Aldred seconded.
 
Michael Blanks stated that they have assured us that they will provide access for fire and police. They will not be isolated. Commissioner Aldred asked if they would be building on the first two lots. Mr. Franks stated that was correct.
 
Counsel Notestine noted that this is not unprecedented. He stated that he thought Bent Creek may have done this. He noted there was a condition that the home could not be occupied.
 
Chair Bob Haines stated he would like two things. The first is that if for any reason these homes have to be torn down that there be is some form of bond.  The second would be to obtain a survey so that it is not discovered later the home is a foot off.
 
Mr. Blanks noted that the Codes Department requires both of these, prior to signing off.
 
Commissioner Aldred made a motion to amend to approve to include two letters, Sunset Parks letter dated April 17, to include paragraph a, b, c, and d, and a letter from Mr. Robert Haemmerlein and Mr. Justin Franks assuring compliance. Commissioner Lawson seconded the amendment. The vote was taken and this request was approved as amended.
 
The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:31 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2007-04 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, April 12, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
 
Members present were Vice-Chair Pat Aldred, Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson, and Brian Truman. Members absent were Chairman Bob Haines. Staff present was Recorder Cindy Lancaster, Building Official Michael Blanks and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicants Mr. Ken Kelley, property owner of 7149 Nolensville Road, Mr. John Wishard, 2211 Rolling Hills Drive. Four citizens were present.
 
Vice-Chair Aldred opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. She then reminded the audience that all cell phones be turned off.
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from March 27, 2007, Commissioner Lawson seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously.
 
Announcements:
 
There were no announcements.
 
Citizen’s comments:
 
Mr. Gardner Jones, 700 Cromwell Court, stated that he was in attendance on behalf of Mr. John Wishard. He stated that his home is the closest to the structure and he has no problem with this construction.
 
New business:
 
Mr. Ken Kelley, applicant of 7149 Nolensville Road, is requesting a variance for buffering requirements, on parking lot lighting, sidewalk and landscape buffer. Mr. Kelley noted that he was here for any questions the board may need answered. He noted that since his rezoning he sits nine feet from property line. He stated that in regards to the lighting, the parking is adjacent to the building. This will be an office complex and will not be open at night.
 
Building Official, Michael Blanks stated that the Planning Commission did approve the site plan, but it is contingent upon obtaining BZA approval. Mr. Blanks stated that the town is in the process of changing the Zoning Ordinance which will allow the Planning Commission to make these types of decisions. He noted that staff does not have a problem with this request.
 
Commissioner Lawson stated one item that was discussed in the Planning Commission was sidewalks. He stated that he did not believe the road was paved, but may be in the near future. He noted that some obtain the right of way by measuring from the center of the road. He stated that if a sidewalk is constructed at the requested location, it may not be in the proper place. Mr. Kelley stated that he would fulfill this obligation.
 
Commissioner Dugger stated that he currently leases office space from Mr. Kelley at this location and wishes to recuse himself from the vote on the variance request.
 
Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the variance, Commissioner Truman seconded. The variance was approved by majority with Vice-Chair Aldred, Commissioner Lawson, and Truman for, and Commissioner Dugger recused.
 
Counsel Notestine stated for clarification the application states the reasons for this request and this Board may wish to note that.  
 
Commissioner Truman restated approval based on the conditions that are within the application.
 
Mr. John Wishard submitted an application for a variance at 2211 Rolling Hills Drive to construct a carport to extend 22 feet by 35 feet which will be one foot three inches outside of the building envelope. Mr. Wishard noted that he has resided at this location since 1991. He would like to request to build a carport adjacent to his home.  Mr. Wishard had submitted pictures indicating the location of the structure. The measurements are outlined in his application which shows one foot three inches on one side and three feet on the other side that would be outside the building envelope. He noted that this will not affect the drainage. He stated that he has discussed this with his neighbors and has their blessing. He noted that Mr. Knight and Mr. Gardner were in attendance this evening for support of this request.
 
Vice-Chair Aldred inquired to Mr. Wishard if he had contacted the homeowners association in regards to this request? He stated that he had not. She noted that she could not get in touch with this association for their comments. Vice-Chair Aldred stated that the carports she has viewed throughout the neighborhood are behind the house.  She read a portion of the zoning ordinance that addressed the Urban Residential zoning.
 
Mr. Blanks noted that staff does not view it the way it was implied. He noted there is large tree buffering between his neighbor and the carport. He stated that staff does not have a problem with this request at all.
 
Mr. Wishard stated that he had the contractor’s proposal. He read various aspects of the planned construction which included matching the current roofing, soffit and facing. He noted that the end gable will have matching siding. He read various other items that would be on the carport.
 
Commissioner Truman stated that Vice-Chair Aldred’s question was a question that he had considered. Commissioner Dugger noted that covenants were not an issue with the request made tonight.
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve, stating that due to the adequate buffering and infringement being so small, Commissioner Lawson seconded. Commissioner Lawson noted that the applicant must get a building permit.  The vote was taken and the variance request was unanimously approved.
 
The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:23 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder
2007-03 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
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 nominated.

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.
Announcements:

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 court.

Commissioner Dugger stated that he thinks it would be a disservice for these applicants if this is postponed.

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.

New business:

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 down.

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 still illegal.

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
Zoning Ordinance.

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
second.

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
hardship.

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
pool.

Mr. Blanks stated that it should be noted that this is an addition. This addition must be
sprinkled.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Lancaster
Town Recorder