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

2008

Minutes Archive

2008-09 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
September 11, 2008- 7:00 p.m.

Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson and Brian Truman. Member Ken Norman was absent.  Staff present was Building Official Michael Blanks, Attorney Robert Notestine and Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department. 
 
Applicants present: James and Patricia Wilson – 862 Dortch Lane.
 
Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.  
 
Announcements:
 
Chair Haines asked that all cell phones be placed on vibrate and then went over the procedures of the meeting.
 
Approval of Minutes:
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from August 14, 2008 and Commission Truman seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved.
 
Citizen’s Comments:
 
There were no citizen’s comments.
 
New Business:
 
862 Dortch Lane – Request for 5-foot Variance to Install Carport
 
Chair Haines stated this was a request for a 5-foot variance in a required setback.  He asked for a motion to get the item on the floor for a discussion.  A motion was made by Commissioner Lawson and seconded by Mr. Truman.
 
Mr. Wilson, the applicant, stated that they would like to put a car cover over their driveway and add some concrete.  He distributed a drawing of the proposed structure and supports and stated it would be a well constructed covering.  
 
In reference to the location, Mr. Blanks stated the requested variance was for a side variance.  He stated the pad will go back to the corner of the house, and the variance is for a 5-foot side setback.  Mr. Wilson drew an outline of the location of the proposed cover on the map of the home site.  He stated it would be ten feet from the property line.  Mr. Blanks stated the ordinance does allow detached accessory structures ten feet from the property line.  
 
Mr. Wilson stated the structure would be aluminum I-beams and aluminum panels that are insulated. It will be bolted to the house to avoid any wind shear problems, etc.
 
Mr. Henry Cole, Jr., 896 Dortch stated he was present regarding the request for the permitted with conditions for an apartment dwelling at 895 Dortch Lane.  Chair Haines advised Mr. Cole that the item has been postponed until next month. 
 
Mr. Blanks stated the Codes Department would not have any issues with this covering.  Mr. Notestine stated the request was standard and something similar to this has been previously approved.  Mr. Wilson stated the concrete pad was already in place, and it would be enlarged.
 
The motion passed unanimously for approval.  Chair Haines stated it would be approved under Section 90.2.4d, which is no harm to public welfare.
 
Commission Dugger asked if the other two postponed items would be on the agenda for next month.  Mr. Blanks stated it was the intention of the applicants to be ready for the next meeting.
 
Chair Haines advised the Wilsons that all they needed to do was get a permit for their carport covering when they were ready to install it.
 
Other Business:
 
Mr. Cole asked about the request for the apartment dwelling that was postponed.  Chair Haines stated there have been no plans submitted.  The request was for an apartment dwelling for their parents with conditions.  Mr. Blanks stated the applicant called and deferred this item until next month in order to get their site plan revised.  
   
Mr. Frank Wilson stated the agenda item regarding a Verizon communications tower on his property was deferred tonight.  He stated Verizon encountered a problem with the location because a federal law will not allow a tower within a half-mile of a national historic site.  The veterinary clinic is less than a half-mile from the proposed tower site, and Verizon has submitted a waiver request to the federal agency.  Verizon is also looking for another site further south if the waiver is not obtained because they really need a tower in this location.
 
Adjournment:
 
Chair Haines made a motion to adjourn, and Commissioner Lawson seconded the motion.  The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 7:30 p.m. 
2008-08 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
August 14, 2008- 7:00 p.m.

Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Tommy Dugger and Charles Lawson. Members Ken Norman and Brian Truman were absent.  Staff present were Building Official Michael Blanks, Attorney Robert Notestine and Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department. 
 
Applicants present: Kay and Johnny Davenport of 2028 Delaware Drive.
 
Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.  
 
Announcements:
 
Chair Haines asked that all cell phones be placed on vibrate and then went over the procedures of the meeting.
 
Approval of Minutes:
 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from June 12, 2008 and Commission Lawson seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved.
 
Citizen’s Comments:
 
There were no citizen’s comments.
 
New Business:
 
2028 Delaware Drive – Variance to Allow Roof Covering over Patio
 
Mr. Blanks stated this lot backs up to a large deep buffer zone area.  They will be encroaching 14 feet into the rear setback.  However, the owners have a 30’ setback with several yards beyond that.  It is a roof cover structure only without walls or enclosures.  
 
Mrs. Davenport stated she may put a fire pit in one of the corners.  She stated they were installing four poles against the house and four poles in the front in the event they decide later to put up screening.  Mr. Blanks stated it would be a mesh type screening to keep out insects, etc.
 
Mr. Blanks stated it was the recommendation of staff to approve, and this is similar to other structures in the area.  The property owners have received approval from their homeowners association.
 
Motion by Mr. Lawson, seconded by Mr. Dugger, to approve the variance due to the large amount of open space on the back of this property.
 
Commissioner Dugger asked about the length of the wrought iron fence from the house.  Mr. Blanks stated the cover would be 14 feet to the end of the patio cover, and then another 14 feet beyond that to the fence. 
 
Mrs. Davenport stated there were no plans for walls to enclose the structure.  It would just be the mesh screening for insects and a ceiling fan.  
 
The vote was taken and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.  Chair Haines stated it would be approved under Section 9.2.4d, which is no harm to public welfare.
 
Mr. Blanks reminded the Davenports to come in for their building permit when they were ready to begin the work on the roof for the patio.
 
Other Business:
 
Due to the number of requests the town is receiving for this type of approval, Commissioner Dugger requested that staff look at the ordinance and put something in writing for requests when it is just open space.  Staff can go ahead and recommend whatever Mr. Blanks feels comfortable with recommending for the distance from the property line. 
 
Mr. Blanks stated he agreed and has already spoken with Planning Director Henry Laird about the requests.  If there is not enough open space behind the property, then the BZA would rule on those properties.  There will be a lot more of these requests, and he stated he agreed with Commissioner Dugger about staff reviewing the ones with open spaces.  
 
Chair Haines stated he would like to see the ordinance changed to take the prohibited use out of the ordinance.  If there is no legitimate structural reason for not allowing a covered patio, then it would be better for it to be addressed in the ordinance.  He stated he had always tried to find the reason for having these distances to begin with, i.e., is it a safety issue or just why it is not permitted to go outside the building envelope. Mr. Blanks stated the building envelope is established by the builder and is a part of the drainage easements, etc.  
 
Counsel Notestine stated the reasons a lot of towns are concerned about covered patios is later on there are additions like fireplaces, wet bars, walls, etc.  Mr. Blanks stated it also becomes a selling point should the homeowner decide to sell the house with the covered patio.   Other issues arise concerning wind loads, etc. when you have an enclosed structure.  The enclosure would not have sprinklers and would not comply with the sprinkler ordinance.  
 
Chair Haines stated he was in no way suggesting that the town not require a building permit for the structure.  He stated he was suggesting it was probably time to look at the ordinance because of the small lots and the setbacks.   
 
Mr. Blanks stated the setbacks are different for each subdivision and are established when the subdivision is brought before the Planning Commission for approval.  The setbacks are also established in the town’s Zoning Ordinance. 

Adjournment:
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to adjourn, and Commissioner Lawson seconded the motion.  The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:15 p.m.
2008-06 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
June 12, 2008- 7:00 p.m.

Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson and Ken Norman. Member Brian Truman was absent.  Staff present was Building Official Michael Blanks, Attorney Robert Notestine and Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department.  

Applicants present: R. Darwin Shockley, Architect for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Matt Taylor with SEC, Inc.  Robert Johnson and Terry Leve representing the church were also present. 

Citizens present: Bette and Karen Shell, 1645 Sunset Road and James and Christine Childress, 1648 Sunset Road.  
Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.   

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

Approval of Minutes:
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from May 8, 2008 and Commission Lawson seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved. 

Citizen’s Comments:
There were no citizen’s comments. 

New Business: 

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints – Applicant requests approval for a religious institution building to be located at 1646-A &1646-B Sunset Road 

Chair Haines stated the applicant, Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, was seeking approval for a religious institution building to be located at 1646-A and 1646-B Sunset Road under the permitted with condition section of Article 2.3.5 of the zoning ordinance.  He requested that the individual representing the church make a presentation.
Mr. Darwin Shockley stated he was the architect representing the applicant.  He introduced Matt Taylor with SEC, Inc, who prepared the civil drawings and Robert Johnson and Terry Leve, who are associated with the church. 
Mr. Blanks stated that he and Town Planner Henry Laird have reviewed this request.  The applicant meets all of the conditions required for approval.

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints – Applicant requests approval for a religious institution building to be located at 1646-A & 1646-B Sunset Road – Cont’d 

Counsel Notestine stated that Commissioner Truman was absent but had sent him an e-mail to be read at the meeting so his comments would be a part of the public record.  The email stated: 

“I’m sending this email to let you know I will be absent from our meeting on June 12th and am sad I will miss this meeting because I have particular interest in the outcome.  I would encourage each of you to vote in favor of the action item on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting.  That being said, and if I was in attendance for the meeting, I would withdraw from voting on the agenda item because I’m a member of the church before you tonight.  I don’t want to show even a hint of a conflict of interest.” 

Motion by Mr. Dugger, seconded by Mr. Norman, for approval, by the request application meeting the Uses Permitted with Conditions, Section Article 2.3.5, Religious Institution, of the zoning ordinance. 

Chair Haines asked for any public comment. 

Ms. Bette Shell, 1645 Sunset Road, stated she and her daughter owned the property across the street from the proposed church location.  She distributed a statement that outlined some of their concerns.  She stated they have been residents for twelve (12) years.  Their concerns regarding the location of a church were increased traffic, noise, road and land usage, lighting and zoning issues.  She stated there have been traffic problems with the addition of two large subdivisions on Sunset Road and the addition of neighborhood schools. She also cited water shortage problems and some disagreements she had with the Benington Subdivision when it was built.  She stated that two-thirds of their property which has a 360’ frontage is directly across from the proposed church location, and they already have problems getting out of their property due to the increased traffic in the area. 

Chair Haines asked the applicant if they had any comments they would like to make. 

Mr. Shockley stated that on an average day, there would only be 10-20 people on the church property on Monday through Saturday.  The normal traffic is only on Sunday mornings.  Regarding noise, there are no outdoor activities planned. 

Ms. Shell asked if the church would be a ward or a stake house because she had previously lived in Salt Lake City near a Mormon church.  Mr. Shockley stated there would be two formal services on Sunday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. with an average of 150 people at each service.  Regarding the property being used as a stake house, Mr. Shockley stated it was the policy of the Latter Day Saints to erect a new facility when the population for the services increased.  This property would not be used as a stake house.  He stated there would be 170-190 parking spaces with a 30-foot landscape buffer all around the property lines.  The building would be very residential in nature with a steeple.  It is not a large scale building.   

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints – Applicant requests approval for a religious institution building to be located at 1646-A & 1646-B Sunset Road – Cont’d 

Chair Haines explained to the residents present that the purpose of the BZA meeting was to approve a valid claim for this facility.  The issues regarding traffic, noise, road and land usage, lighting and zoning would all be addressed at the Planning Commission at their meeting, and they would have the ultimate authority.  The BZA does not have the power to address those issues.  He encouraged the residents to attend those meetings if and when this project comes forward for approval to address their concerns. 

Regarding the sanitary sewer installation, Mr. Shockley stated Mr. Taylor with SEC, Inc. has a meeting with Metro Water and Sewer tomorrow to address sewer issues and requirements that are necessary before proceeding with this proposed project.  In prior projects in other jurisdictions, he stated that the area residents usually become more comfortable with the project as it proceeds through the various stages of approval.  In the past, they have held meetings with the area residents to answer any questions they might have concerning the project.  He stated they would do everything in their power to address any concerns by the residents.   

Mr. Johnson spoke up and stated the church wanted to be neighbor friendly.  The ward is what you would think of as an individual congregation and a stake would be several congregations. This building will have a stake office, but it is not being built as a stake center.  The size of the footprint of the building is for a regular meeting house building. 
Mr. Shockley stated the chapel seating for this building would be 254.  When he referred to the   building being used twice a year at capacity, the capacity number would be 610.   

Mrs. James Childress asked a question about notification about the project as it moved forward through the approval process.  Counsel Notestine advised that churches fall within the permitted uses in residential areas.  There are about five or six criteria that religious institutions must meet.  Mr. Blanks has stated yes, this church does meet those criteria at this stage of the approval process.  Approval of this project tonight will move the project along for the zoning and permitted use.  A hearing and approval will still be required by the Planning Commission.  Substantial site plan drawings will be required for that meeting, and more details will be provided at that time.  Public notices will be sent out prior to the meeting. 

Chair Haines encouraged the citizens present to come to the Planning Commission meeting when this request is heard.  Counsel Notestine stated the town will not take any further action with this project until the developer comes back with additional plans for review, etc.   

Mr. Darwin stated the civil engineer has a meeting with Metro Water and Sewer tomorrow regarding the connection for sanitary sewer service.  He stated this development would be bearing the cost of providing a public sanitary sewer line, and they would be willing to work with the neighbors that do not have sanitary sewer service for connection.  It is a huge cost, but if it does work out, this would be beneficial to the neighbors presently on septic tanks. 

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints – Applicant requests approval for a religious institution building to be located at 1646-A & 1646-B Sunset Road – Cont’d 

In answer to questions about the trees and storm water issues, Mr. Shockley stated that everything would be in compliance with all town ordinances. Counsel Notestine stated that the development would have to pass all the town ordinances prior to approval.  It will be looked at very closely. 

Chair Haines closed the public hearing.  He advised the citizens that the agendas for the all the commission meetings are posted on the town’s webpage.    

Commissioner Dugger stated he felt the neighbors had some legitimate concerns, and these would be addressed by the Planning Commission members. He stated he felt the church met the criteria and that is why he supported the motion.  Counsel Notestine stated the town has a Storm Water Board now and the credentials of the board members are quite impressive. 

The vote was taken and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. 

Adjournment: 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to adjourn, and Commissioner Norman seconded the motion.  The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 7:40 p.m. 
2008-05 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
May 8, 2008- 7:00 p.m.

Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Members Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson, Ken Norman and Brian Truman.  Staff present was Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department Permit Specialist, Town Planner Henry Laird and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicant Ned Twerdahl was also present.  

Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.  

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

Approval of Minutes: 
There was a correction to the minutes of March 13, 2008.  On page four, the minutes should reflect that Commission Norman voted yes and Commission Truman voted no on the motion.  Commissioner Lawson made a motion to approve the minutes, with corrections, from March 13, 2008, and Commission Truman seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved with the correction. 

Citizen’s Comments: 
There were no citizen’s comments. 

New Business: 

The first item of business was from Mr. Ned Twerdahl, applicant, of 2074 Delaware Drive.  He distributed some copies of drawings and stated that he and his wife would like to install a shed-style roof over an existing slab.  The slab measurements are 21x16 roughly, and it is located at the back of the house.  He stated their home backs up to the common area for the Winterset Woods subdivision.  The ceiling is dropped with a tongue and groove pine inside with cedar shake on the outside to blend in with the surroundings.  The homeowners association has approved the covering. 
Chair Haines asked if the white columns would match the ones on the front of the house, and Mr. Twerdahl stated that was correct.  Mr. Twerdahl stated once the covering is attached that it would look like it has been there since inception. 
In answer to a question from Chair Haines, Mr. Twerdahl stated the existing slab extends 16 feet from the house.  The posts would actually sit on the actual concrete already in place.  

Chair Haines stated the slab was not considered a structure until a hard roof is installed over it.  Mr. Twerdahl stated he was not clear about the plat, but in his estimation, the slab was already 3.5 to 4 feet onto the setback. 

Mr. Laird read from a memo from Michael Blanks, the Town’s Building Official, which stated “the roof line of the proposed awning structure cover will encroach approximately 16’ into rear setback”. 

There was some confusion as to where the setback was located for this property.  It was requested that Ms. Simerson pull the plot plan for this Lot # 218.  Chair Haines stated Mr. Twerdahl might not even be outside of the envelope of his property. 

Mr. Notestine stated one of the important factors of the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider is the impact on the public.  The fact that there is a common area behind this property would be a very strong factor in this request.  Mr. Twerdahl stated he had spoken to his neighbors, and no one objected.  

Mr. Laird stated the file for lot #218 with the plot plan was unable to be located.  He pulled the plat for the Winterset Woods subdivision to review the sizes of the lots. He stated the lots were approximately 30 feet from the back of the house to the property line.  In the district standards, Mr. Laird said the permitted incidental structures within the setbacks include: “Arbor and trellises; awnings, patio covers, or canopies projecting not more than six feet from the principal building  over a required setback and having no supports other than provided by the wall or its integral parts”.  He stated this was under Section 2.2.1 (1) and was passed a few months ago. Under this same section under (6) it says:  “An uncovered deck that is located at least ten feet from the rear property line does not encroach on required side setbacks, etc.”  

Motion by Mr. Norman, seconded by Mr. Turman, that the variance be approved.  Mr. Notestine suggested that the minutes should reflect the reason why the variance was approved.  He stated you could refer back to the manual and the fact that it does not appear to be harmful to the public interest could be one reason.  Whatever reason is chosen, it should be a part of tonight’s record. 

Commissioner Norman stated his reason would be that the shed-style cover does not exceed the space of the concrete slab.  The owner’s lot does back up to a common area, and it is a fit and finish that does match the existing structure.  It does not in anyway distract from the neighbors view.  There is really no reason to not approve this request. 

Commissioner Turman stated his second was for the same reasons that Commissioner Norman has stated.  He stated he had visited the property earlier to view the request.  It will blend in with the existing structure once it is completed.  It does back up to the common area where there will be plenty of room in the backyard once the structure is completed.  It will not impede the residences on both sides of this property.  The neighbors have not voiced any opposition to this proposed structure.  He stated he would like to mention that the BZA approved a sunroom at the last meeting which is located only two doors from this location.  That sunroom exceeds much further back that what this applicant is proposing.  The BZA is not here to set a precedent, but the sunroom in a way did set one.  The sunroom did not match the existing structure where this one does match the home.

Chairman Haines stated this request would be approved under 1.9.5 Section B: Variances, “where the relief may be granted without detriment to the public good”.  The vote was unanimous for the motion.   

Adjournment: 
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 7:25 p.m. 
2008-03 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
March 13, 2008- 7:00 p.m.

Members present were: Chair Bob Haines, Members Tommy Dugger, Charles Lawson, Ken Norman and Brian Truman.  Staff present was Michael Blanks, Town Building Official, Judy Simerson, Building/Codes Department Permit Specialist, Town Planner Henry Laird and Town Attorney Robert Notestine. Applicants Phil and Nancy Taylor and Donald and Nancy Neff were present.  One citizen was in attendance. 

Chair Haines called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 

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

Approval of Minutes: 
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to approve the minutes from November 8, 2007, and Commission Lawson seconded.  The minutes were unanimously approved. 

Citizen’s Comments: 
There were no citizen’s comments. 

New Business: 

The first item of business was 902 Timberside Drive – Request to Permit with Conditions to allow Accessory Dwelling.  The applicants, Phil and Cindy Taylor, were present and introduced themselves. 

Mr. Laird stated the Taylors were requesting approval for an accessory dwelling of 745 square feet on their residential lot under the Permitted with Conditions article of the zoning ordinance.  Under 2.3.1 Accessory Dwelling/Apartment of the ordinance there are seven (7) conditions that must be met, and the Taylors have met the conditions.  There is one conflict under Section D that states the accessory dwelling shall be no larger than 600 square feet.  This conflicts with SR – Suburban Residential Regulations 222.a that states that accessory dwellings shall be no larger than 750 square feet.  He stated he believed this section was missed getting changed. 

Chair Haines stated his recollection was that the Planning Commission increased this regulation to 750 square feet, and this section of the ordinance failed to be changed.  The 750 square feet is correct. 

Mr. Laird stated staff was recommending approval for the request.   

Commissioner Truman stated the applicants are in compliance with the 750 feet since there are requesting 745 feet.   
Commissioner Dugger made a motion for approval since the applicants are within all the setbacks and all the guidelines.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Norman, and the minutes were unanimously approved.

The second item of business was 2066 Delaware Drive – Variance to allow Sunroom Addition.  The applicants, Donald and Nancy Neff, were present. 

Michael Blanks, Town Building Official, stated this was a request to allow an encroachment into the rear setback of this property for 15.5 feet.  It does meet the side setbacks.  The residence is adjacent to a very large open area between this development and another development, Benington Subdivision.  This was an unfortunate situation for the Neffs in their appearance before the BZA tonight.  There was no malicious intent on their part, and they were misled by their contractor as to who was responsible for securing a permit for this structure. The Building and Codes Department has made contact with Tom Watson of the investigative section of the State of Tennessee to have a complaint filed against the contractor who erected this sunroom.   

Chair Haines asked if the applicant had any comments. 

Mr. Neff stated that he concurred with Mr. Blanks’ comments.  He stated they were told by the contractor not to worry with getting a permit because he would take care of the permits and everything was fine.  He stated they were quite shocked to learn that they had a major issue with the sunroom.  He stated they enjoyed living in Nolensville and contributing to the area.   

Mr. Blanks interjected to add that this sunroom was constructed by a licensed and reputable contractor.  The superintendent chose to get off on the wrong foot with the town.   

Mr. Neff stated the sunroom turned out beautifully but now there was this issue.  He stated he understood the setback rules. The difference is that their backyard has no contiguous backyard where they are encroaching.  There is a huge green space with trees, a creek, and then more trees and a green space before the other future neighbor’s backyard.  This sunroom is not ruining someone else’s quality of life.  He stated most of the neighbors have commented favorably regarding the sunroom, rather than saying it is an eyesore. 

Commissioner Dugger asked Mr. Notestine if the application should also state that the applicants are requesting a variance for a setback also instead of just asking for a variance for a sunroom addition constructed by a contractor prior to obtaining a building permit.  Mr. Notestine stated that was correct, and the applicants can make a verbal request to amend it tonight.  He stated it is a setback encroachment.  One of the criteria on the variances is does it have some measurable impact on the community, neighbors, etc.  There are no neighbors here tonight that are upset.  In one of the pictures submitted by the applicants, you can see a wall of the next door neighbor that looks like it extends as far out as this sunroom does.    

Mr. Neff stated when they applied for the variance, they were not aware that there was an encroachment.  The builder had told them their lot line was back to where the trees were.  He stated they have learned since that the lot line is forward of the trees.  Mr. Neff stated they were also verbally requesting tonight for a rear setback variance of 15.5 feet.   Mr. Blanks stated there was a 30 foot setback on the rear property. 

Counsel Notestine stated he did not think a homeowner should be punished for what their contractor did, but he hoped the word gets out that contractors cannot build structures across setbacks.  If this was located right next to someone’s home it would cause a problem for the town.  Drainage ditches are sometimes located in these common areas, and the town cannot allow people to build on them.  The town has had problems with this kind of thing in the past.  He asked Mr. Blanks about the utility easement across the back of the property.  Mr. Blanks stated there was no encroachment on the utility easement. 

Motion by Commission Dugger, to approve the sunroom with the condition that the homeowners pay the building permit fee for the addition.  He stated he wished there was a penalty he could assess the contractor.  This is a unique lot without other neighbors behind them.   The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson. 

Commissioner Truman stated this was a very tough decision with no ill will against the applicants.  He stated his vote tonight would be to deny the motion.  He stated his view was the BZA did not set a precedent.  However, he stated if he looked at it as if the neighbors would think that the Neffs got theirs approved, let’s roll the dice here.  He stated it is the responsibility of the homeowner to make sure the lot information that they received from their building is correct.  He stated when his family moved to Nolensville they had their own survey of their lot done to make sure that if they made improvements to their lot that they did obtain the proper permits.  He stated he understood that the patio enclosure contractor did state they would take care of the permitting, but he felt the homeowner should have been accountable and made sure that was done.  There are no winners in this situation because the contractor could be made to come back and rip the enclosure off and return it to its original state, because if he had applied properly for the permit, it would have been denied because of the setbacks.   

Mr. Neff stated during the time period when the contractor assured him they would take care of the permit that his wife was going in for major surgery.  He stated they normally would have been more diligent.  He stated he looked to see if the contractor has given him this information in writing, but he did not find it.  He stated they requested the builder to be present tonight but they refused. 

Mr. Blanks stated in this case, the superintendent was promoted within the confines of doing this from the time this was completed until now.  He is doing all he can to make sure his superiors are now aware of this.  The codes department is trying to get the state involved in this, and this situation and the actions of the contractor are not going to go unnoticed.  This issue may be settled here tonight, but it is not settled with the contractor.

Mrs. Neff stated she has complained to the customer service department of this international company.  They should have known what they were doing in regard to the permitting. 

Commissioner Dugger stated this was a tough decision and he had come prepared to vote against the approval, but something changed his mind. 

Mr. Neff stated the reviews standards plus the general provisions under the zoning act are intended that no harm comes to the town or the neighbors, etc.  He stated he felt they were okay under the general provisions, but they do not have the setbacks.  In Section 9, under the variances and reviews, one of them is that the physical characteristics of the property must be taken into account. 

Mr. Notestine stated if this has been built in a drainage easement this would have been a huge problem for the applicants and the contractor.  Mr. Neff stated the sunroom was built upon an existing concrete patio that was already in place.  

Chair Haines stated under the ordinances, a pad can be put there but you cannot put a structure on the pad without a permit.  Mr. Neff stated it was an existing pad with a little bit of concrete added outside the door to sit on.   

Chair Haines stated for the BZA to grant the variance, the guidelines state, “it shall be shown that circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other property in the neighborhood”.  He stated the BZA was very limited to the law.  

Commissioner Lawson stated he agreed with Commissioner Dugger and he had come to the meeting prepared to vote no on this request.  There are circumstances that shed a little more light on the situation.  

Mrs. Neff pointed out that the drainage was there and it filled in at the house before them.  Mr. Blanks stated the drainage was piped under in that area. 

Counsel Notestine pointed out that Winterset Woods was a nice subdivision but when it was developed it was not done under the Town of Nolensville’s supervision because it was in Williamson County.  Right after that, the town annexed this development.  The Town must make sure that drainage easements are not blocked because it can cause flooding and groundwater problems.  If the town allows homeowners to build sunrooms in drainage easements, there will be no end to the problems. 

Chair Haines stated this was not an easy decision.  He stated if there was no further discussion, he would call the question. 

Commissioners Dugger, Lawson and Norman voted yes for the motion, with Commissioner Truman and Chair Haines voting no.  The motion passed 3 to 2. 

Mr. Blanks asked if stipulations could be added, and Mr. Notestine stated conditions were added as part of the motion that the Neffs would pay the building permit fee. 

Adjournment: 
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 7:25 p.m.