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

2017

2017 Minutes

2017-11 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
November 9th, 2017 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Joan Lawler, Arthur “Trey” Gay, and Mike Donaho

Members Absent:   Wade Wakefield

Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and

Codes Assistant Cristin Webb

1.  CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.

2.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 10/12/17 BZA meeting and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

4.  ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.

5.  NEW BUSINESS

Joan Lawler introduced The Church at Nolensville as the first case and asked for the representative to come to the podium.  Brian Dodridge introduced himself as the Lead Pastor and said he is a Nolensville resident at 104 Lodge Hall Road and that he was representing The Church at Nolensville at 7388 Nolensville Road (12.85 acres), a regional campus of Brentwood Baptist Church.  Brian Dodridge mentioned that he went before the Planning Commission to speak about potential office usage since there is a home located on the property.  Brian Dodridge, an employee of Brentwood Baptist explained that Brentwood Baptist has plans to build out a worship space off of Industrial Boulevard that will be finished in the spring or summer.  The Industrial Boulevard property has a five year lease that may extend to an eight year lease. He stated that the church wants to be a good steward of the property and use the home Monday through Friday as a ministry office, for office work, and Pastoral staff mainly for Pastoral counseling.  They are appearing before the BZA for approval of a church use, which is a use permitted with conditions. 

Joan Lawler asked if anyone had any questions and Mike Donoho asked if there was any new construction on the property. 

Brian answered that there are old horse sheds that will come down.  They will replace window AC units.  The driveway is gravel and needs pavement.

Arthur “Trey” Gay asked Tommy Dugger if the PC had any concerns and Tommy Dugger answered that the PC said the real issue lies with the BZA. 

Bob Notestine added that Tennessee has a religious freedom restoration act since 1993.  There is a Federal Law also and that is broader.  In looking at the law as it applies to churches he indicated that the Town cannot curtail, impede or infringe on the church use.  Most municipalities do not want to infringe on church use. 

Arthur “Trey” Gay asked when the church would begin construction.  Brian Dodridge said that potentially they will use 7388 Nolensville Road to build a church but that right now they are investing heavily in the place off of Industrial Boulevard as a permanent home.  Mr. Swainston’s property has a five year lease for now.  There will be 245 seats in the worship space, restrooms provided, and parking.  It’s an investment that was made in thinking a church may be built in eight years as a maximum.  Brian Dodridge expects that once if and when they begin plans to build the church it will take about two years. 

Tommy Dugger pointed out this is similar to the process that Providence Baptist Church went through. 

Brian Dodridge mentioned that this home will never be used as a Parsonage. He noted that the only staff member is Jay who is on Brentwood Baptist Staff and he is a resident of Nolensville.  Jay will do some work on the home to get it ready to use for light office use. 

Joe Curtsinger came to the podium and said he lives at 7380 Nolensville Road.  He had a few questions.  He had checked the law.  He was concerned that there was no hardship.  They have a building and a meeting space in an area that is allowed.  He was concerned that it opens up the opportunity elsewhere because it is not an office.  The congregation has to be looked at in terms of size.  The property would no longer have just a home.  He was concerned about the septic and sewer issue.  He checked with Williamson County to see what they could do.  He wondered about a site plan.  He indicated there was no hardship here so why should the Town allow the home to be used as an office.  He is not against the church but every time he looks at the rules for religious use it changes. 

Sarah Sitterle said that this application is a use permitted with conditions.  This applicant does not have to demonstrate a hardship situation.  A site plan will be required at a later date if and when they decide to build on the property.  At that time they will have to look at parking requirements and other issues.  At this point none of that information is a requirement. 

Bob Notestine explained that a variance request would require the Board to look at hardship. This case is quite different because it is church use that is permitted with conditions that is being addressed this evening.  No church services will be held and he explained that yes, at a later date years down the line a site plan will be required if they decide to build a church at 7388 Nolensville Road. 

Joe Curtsinger said we have to be very careful as to what can be used in the office space.  He asked what we would do if the church sells the property. 

Bob Notestine explained that if they sell it to someone else it disqualifies the past use that was granted.

Tommy Dugger noted that with a 1,600 square foot house it is a small structure so it cannot hold many people. 

Brian Dodridge mentioned that before Brentwood Baptist purchased this land, they had received conceptual approval from TDOT to add another entrance further north if needed.  In addition, a sewer easement was granted from The Jones Company on the south side of the property.  Additionally, there is an entrance to the south that would perhaps be used only on Sundays.

Tommy Dugger asked about putting stipulations on the number of persons in the building but Bob Notestine said we cannot add conditions at this time. 

Tommy Dugger made a motion that we grant the church permitted use with conditions since Brian Dodridge has met the conditions.  Arthur “Trey” Gay Trey Gay seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously. 

Joan Lawler introduced the second applicant as the Oxygen Health & Fitness facility at 7263 Nolensville Road.  A representative for the business came to the podium and explained that he is opening a fitness facility with a juice bar at 7263 Nolensville Road, Building #3.  He explained that the plan is for it to be class oriented.  Orange theory is a bigger brand that has a similar concept.  There will be groups of 10-12 for an hour long class, some personal training, and a juice bar at front with a pass through window.  The Oxygen Bar will have masks that are similar to what the NFL players use.  The oxygen is not a medical need, but the purpose is to provide a social aspect to the studio.  He indicated that after a workout people will grab a shake and sit at the oxygen bar.  The bar has four stools.  He noted that the HVAC vent location has changed the plans a little.  The business will use all of building #3.  The idea is to have a circuit training thing.  They have 8 treadmills. They expect 16 to 18 people per class.  The staffing would also include one juice bar employee and trainer.  The business is a small operation.  Employees will have 4 -5 hour shifts. 

Joan Lawler asked about the letter from Lucas Abolita it raised the issue of the 20 foot buffer.  Drawings appear that there was asking for relief on the buffer.  It does appear that there is 30 feet between the edge of the property line and the building so that the 20 foot buffer is doable.  However, Joan Lawler said that the landscaping drawings in no way met standard for the landscaping as addressed in the code. 

The representative had spoken with Lucas Abolita over the phone and Lucas had said he would get with the landlord about the issue.  They wondered if it was a sound buffer or for beautification. 

Sarah Sitterle answered that the buffer was for the use and the building was associated with a heavier use facility than an office, which had prompted the requirement. 

The representative indicated that Lucas Abolita is looking for relief because the fitness studio is going to be very quiet and small scale. 

Joan Lawler indicated that the application stated that no one is living next door so perhaps conditions can be waived.  Joan Lawler explained that this is not the point.  Just because no one is living next door does not mean that condition requirements may be waived.  The code requires the landscaping conditions to be met.  No variance is involved.  Yes or no is required for the condition. 

Tommy Dugger added that the applicant would not get a C of O unless they met the conditions of the buffer.
Sarah Sitterle added that is something that could be amended as part of the site plan to include that buffer area as part of the landscape plan.

Tommy asked for the representative’s name and what capacity he serves for the business.  Chris Harris indicated that he is both a business manager and trainer.  He is helping Lucas and Victoria Abolita open before they move up here.  He owns a house in Nolensville. 

Tommy Dugger moved for approval.  Mike Donaho seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously with all voting in favor. 

6.  OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7.  ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting  at 7:34 PM.
2017-10 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
October 12th, 2017 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Joan Lawler, and Arthur “Trey” Gay

Members Absent:   Mike Donaho and Wade Wakefield

Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Engineer Don Swartz & Codes Assistant Cristin Webb

1.  CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.

2.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 9/14/17 BZA meeting and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

4.  ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.

5.  NEW BUSINESS

Joan Lawler began the meeting by describing briefly the two variance requests for the Providence Baptist Church.  Joan introduced the first as the front yard setback and the second as an impervious surface ratio.  Joan Lawler introduced Don Swartz, Town Engineer who spoke on behalf of the church. 

Don Swartz began by explaining why the Town is requesting the variances on behalf of the church.  He explained that two factors are at play in this situation.  The first is that the church has a multi-phase development plan which Don Swartz said he brought with him.  Coupled with that are the Town’s plans to widen Sunset Road and the acquisition of additional rights of way to realize those plans. 

Don Swartz directed the board to the digital image illustrating the minimum building set back line of seventy five feet from the right of way reservation that the church provided.  Don Swartz explained that unfortunately the right of way reservation will not be sufficient to get the repair work done on Sunset Road.  Don Swartz further explained that the Town must move north a little bit in this area and therefore would need additional rights of way that were not anticipated at the time the church came before the Town at their first site development plan meeting. 

Mr. Swartz explained that Providence Baptist Church initially proposed a third phase of their campus development and so with the widening of Sunset Road the Town will take anywhere from eight to twelve feet.

Don Swartz explained that this will put us into the very corner of their building.   When the Town approached the church about acquiring an additional eight to twelve feet, the church was concerned that they might be boxing themselves in with a setback violation.  Consequently the church was worried about realizing their third phase of development. 

Mr. Swartz stated that the church would therefore be willing to continue with the acquisition of right of way and their third phase if we could guarantee that they could realize their third step. 

Don Swartz explained that the only guarantee would be if this Board granted them a variance request so that is the first request on the agenda for this evening.  The church was asking to go to a sixty foot setback because the Town may only need ten feet but they may need twelve. That is why we are asking for fifteen feet to be safe. 

Don Swartz explained that the other aspect of all of this is that when the Town does make a right of way it will encroach into the green space of the church.  The church is already very close to their ISR of 50%. 

Don Swartz explained that we the Town on behalf of the church was looking at a variance request of 5% this evening.  Don Swartz explained that he had the roadway plans if anyone needed to see them. 

Don Swartz mentioned that the Town has done something similar to this in the past with Haley Industrial Park. The Town needed an easement to locate a storm sewer through a lot and in doing so the owner or developer built a sewer outside the plans.  In exchange for allowing him to have a side yard set back in order to get a building in, the Town received the easement. 

Don Swartz further explained that these two equitable variance requests off set Providence Baptist Church completing the third phase of their development plan. 

Tommy Dugger asked Don Swartz if this was the right of way reservation the school acquired when they put the school in for the turning.  Don Swartz answered, “No a right of way is on the south side of the road and they also have a right of way in front of the school.”  “This is something that the church gave us when they applied for their site plan.”

Joan Lawler asked the Brown family if they had any questions. 

Tommy Dugger added that he wanted to disclose that he is a member of Providence Baptist Church. 

Bob Notestine said that no it is not a problem. 

Bob Notestine said he also wanted to disclose that he has worked with the Brown family in a legal relationship.  Don Swartz added that in a small community people are often connected somehow.   

Arthur “Trey” Gay  asked about the rock wall near Sunset Park that was built many years ago.  Will it be affected in this project?

Don Swartz said it would be difficult to answer because that is a separate issue. 

Arthur “Trey” Gay  added that should something like that happen we must make a point to talk about the rock wall as we proceed with right of way negotiation.

Don Swartz explained that the Town and the appraiser will go and do the negotiation on the right of way.  The Town has been accommodating in the past on Rocky Fork road.  The Town will compensate property owners and are agreeable as part of this process. 

Ron Brown, 1670 Sunset Road, came to the podium and introduced himself.  Ron Brown said that his neighbor across the street offered to give him some land but it’s on the south side.  Ron Brown asked what process does is in place to make that request.

Don Swartz explained that the process is not quite that simple because the renovation project cannot be stair stepping north and south due to the roadway condition.  The roadway must be designed as an integral unit and due to the roadway condition and conflicts with the utility district the Town had to move part of our renovation process to the north side. 

Joan Lawler asked Don Swartz if there is a formal process for Ron Brown?  Don Swartz answered that  yes, as Ron Brown deals with Ms. Rhemann he does not have to sell his land until he is completely satisfied.

Joan Lawler added that a five percent variance seems minimal because what else can be done with the right of way and she said she is happy to grant that right of way. 

Don Swartz asked Bob Notestine about the third phase in the right of way since it was approved by the town.  Don asked, does the church have a vested right and then the Town could be held for liable damages?  Bob Notestine said that since it is an active site plan and since ground is broken they would indeed have a vested right but he would research the issue.

Tommy Dugger moved for approval of both variances and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion. 

The motion was approved unanimously. 

6.  OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7.  ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler asked about adjournment.  Tommy made a motion for adjournment and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion.  All voted in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 7:12 PM.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb.
2017-07 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
July 31, 2017 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Joan Lawler, Arthur Gay, Wade Wakefield and Mike Donaho

Members Absent:    None

Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle, Codes Assistant Cristin Webb

1.  CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.

2.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 7/13/17 BZA meeting making sure that they reflected the motion to have a special meeting to further discuss the possible porte-cochere structures in Telfair. It was seconded by Mike Donoho.  The motion passed unanimously.

4.  ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.

5.  NEW BUSINESS

Joan Lawler asked for any announcements.  Since there were no announcements she stated that the purpose of this special meeting was to address the original request which was to construct ten or twelve houses with the porte-cochere arrangement.  Joan Lawler added that since this arrangement does not have a common roof or floor attached to the home it therefore becomes an accessory building.  Ordinance 2.2.2. F applies in this case and all accessory structures must be in the rear or the side yard.  She stated that at issue that evening is whether or not this variance request right now exceeds the powers and duties of the BZA.

Bob Notestine spoke and said that it may not hurt for clarification purposes to speak to what exactly are the developers asking for this evening.  He mentioned having the revised drawing in front of him with an asterisk by the lots and asked if this was the subject being dealt with this evening.

Christopher Smith the developer of Telfair came to the podium and described the purpose for the request.  He noted that they were trying to find something interesting that provided improvement to the street scape.  The builder that has that feature is Celebration and he asked people to look at the exhibit in front of them with the asterisks on it. 

Bob Notestine explained the need to clarify what was being established for this particular meeting.   The committee usually looks for reasons for the variance as well as hardships.  He pointed out that it seemed at the last meeting the developers wanted to look at a variance for the whole subdivision and pointed out that the BZA cannot do that because it is beyond the scope of what a BZA can do.  He pointed out that he had not seen a request asking for particular lots, but noted that if the applicant was asking for the Board to look at one lot and approve it then that is normally what is before the BZA but one must meet the hardship clause. 

Michael Katsaitis came to the podium and said that he preferred the committee just focus on Lot 94.  He noted that Lot 102 was in that overall scheme of streetscaping and that they had identified it as another possible location for a porte-cochere. 

Joan Lawler pointed out that when the committee gathered on the 13th the gentlemen were asking for ten or thirteen houses to have this feature.  She asked what was significant about the lot that may possibly have the porte-cochere and wondered if it was a hardship.  It appears to be the same as all the others. 

Michael Katsaitis said that this lot is a typical lot and these are the first four lots that developers originally wanted to build.  The original goal was to build the porte-cochere in the first four homes being built. 

Joan Lawler further clarified by asking Michael Katsaitis if he was asking for only Lot 94. 

Michael Katsaitis said that yes they are only asking for approval of Lot 94. 

Bob Notestine pointed out that they may come back to ask for other lots to be approved for this feature. 

Michael Katsaitis said that the market may tell them that people do not like this feature and it may not sell. 
Bob asked if this is home was being built on a trial basis.  Michael Katsaitis indicated that it was a test build. 

Arthur Gay said he looked at Lot 94 which is a quarter acre lot.  He asked what the price point will be for the home on this lot.

Michael Katsaitis said this home will cost closer to the high fives perhaps - five eighty, or six hundred thousand. 
Arthur Gay pointed out that he was on vacation with family and was absent from the July 13th meeting.  He had in the past seen this plan on many homes that are million dollar plus homes but not on a home on a quarter acre lot. 

Michael asked if the drawing in front of the committee members has the elevation. 

Arthur asked if this is the Brookmeade. 

Michael Katsaitis said yes.  He told the committee that he has a similar home in Lockwood Glen and he had photographs.  This home was also on a quarter acre lot.  Michael approached the podium to show pictures.  He pointed out that with that particular building you drive through the lot to the two car garage in the back hidden through the porte-cochere.  With Lockwood Glen they did it as a three car garage.  At Telfair it will be marketed as a Flex Room, which could include a hobby room or for storage, or a wood shop or an art studio. 

Arthur asked Bob if we have established that our Board can make a decision on this tonight.

Bob answered that the board had the ability to grant a request for a variance and was a semi-judicial body.  He explained that the drawing did not comply with the ordinance but if the developers were able to show hardships that justify approval then it may be done if they were asking about one lot.  To grant more than one lot takes up the Planning Commission and BOMA.  The BZA can grant variances on properties if they think the hardships merit it.  One of the hardships might be the size of the lot compared with the project but one has to be careful.  One of the hardships is that it should not be harmful to the public and then there is another one that the issue should not be self-created. 

Tommy Dugger mentioned that one of the issues that gave the committee heartburn at the last meeting was item on Page 2 part D because they were asking for ten or eleven lots which is not detrimental to public welfare.  But the next part of the language said it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.  He added that he liked the plan because it hid the garage but that asking for more than one was not possible. 

Michael Katsaitis pointed out that he had examples of the porte-cocheres in Annandale, Westhaven and some other developments.  He said that no other builder in Middle Tennessee would put a porte-cochere on such a small lot because it is usually a feature of a million dollar plus home. 

Joan Lawler added that she also liked the look of the home but had hesitation regarding the hardship issue because that lot does not look any different than any other lot. 

Michael agreed that there is no difference but that the developers are simply trying to add variety to their product line and hide the garage. 

Michael Donoho asked if these other designs and examples in photographs in the other neighborhoods were admitted by code or allowed variances when they were constructed. 

Michael Katsaitis said they are admitted by code.  No variance was necessary in those cases in other neighborhoods.
Bob Notestine clarified that sometimes BZA people will say if it is not permitted by the code then a variance may not be granted.  That is not necessarily true.  The purpose of the zoning appeal is to consider variance requests that are different from the code.  If one or more of the hardships exist then we have the right to consider the request. 

Michael Katsaitis said that he could make the homes meet zoning ordinances by finishing the attached porte-cochere by adding a second floor.  However, increasing the size of the home would not be efficient for this product line. He added that the committee could debate the definition of a wall as another possible solution.  He asked if there was an opening on that wall would it meet the definition of a wall. 

Bob Notestine added that in the past the committee has never liked front load garages. 

Mike Donoho pointed out that he purchased his home because it has a rear facing garage. 

Arthur Gay asked if this is an all brick home and Michael Katsaitis answered that no it is a farm house look with siding. 
Tommy Dugger asked if the garages in the back are attached to the house and Michael answered yes.  Tommy Dugger noted that there were visitors in the audience and Joan Lawler asked if the visitors had any comments to add.

Brian Snyder came to the podium and said that this plan adds diversity to the product line.  Brian Snyder lives in Bent Creek where the homes are all very similar.  He added that there are different ways to do the shrubbery and faces of the homes.  He added that he liked the unique flair these homes have.  Bryan Snyder said that when he saw the pictures presented he thought they looked like the new homes being renovated in East Nashville area.  From a price point those homes have been successful.  Brian Snyder said he liked the homes that the developer presented this evening.

Jason Patrick came to the podium and said that the BZA is not really the proper forum to address these issues.  He visited the homes in Lockwood but does not see a hardship in this case.  Jason Patrick said he liked the look of the homes and would personally like to allow for this to happen but is not sure the BZA was the proper forum. 

Arthur Gay asked if the proposed home on Lot 94 has siding or Hardiplank. 

Michael Katsaitis answered yes. 

Arthur Gay agreed that the south side of the new school campus does need diversity.  He said he wanted home values to consistently remain high and said that he sees this is one way to do it.  He has seen homes in the past done with brick and stone and would hate to approve something that does not look good in five or ten years.

Christopher Smith came to the podium and said this is a great opportunity to add something to the sub market and that Nolensville should have an interest in modifying the code for the concept.  He suggested that they build one and then the committee could critique it and give ideas about what they liked or did not like, almost like a case study.  He said that this could be an opportunity to test the market. 

Michael Katsaitis came to the podium and added that initially Celebration was planning to model this home but after the last meeting on July 13th, Celebration decided to withdraw the plans to model this home.  He explained that the porte-cochere will longer be the feature of the subdivision.  Instead the model home will be a farm house with side entry.

Wade Wakefield added that he likes the design but cannot find the hardship.  He asked Bob what committee this should be kicked back to. 

Bob Notestine said it should go back to BOMA and it takes three to four months. 

Mike Katsaitis said this would be a hardship for them because they do not have time to wait to get started on Lot 94. 
Mayor James Alexander came to the podium to ask if any of the examples are on seventy foot lots. 

Mike Donoho asked about the building envelope and the lot size. 

Mayor James Alexander said there is not a hardship in this case.  Therefore it is necessary to go through the proper process outside the BZA and add the right language, in the right way.  

Tommy Dugger pointed out that the committee could use article D to grant permission to build one home and not grant any more than one.  He supported granting one home because he did not see any harm to the ordinance by granting permission for one home.   

Michael Katsaitis said he was looking for approval of Lot 94 and then he may go through the proper channels to get a sponsor. 

Christopher Smith said he will need help and guidance with that process. 

Wade Wakefield asked if Celebration would have to come back each time they wanted to create a porte-cochere. 
Bob answers that yes each time they wanted to build this they would have to come back to the BZA. 

Michael Katsaitis said that if they were granted this variance then tomorrow they would look for a sponsor to work the amended language through the system. 

Jason Patrick asked for the language to be read aloud.  Tommy Dugger read the clauses in question again. 

Bob Notestine pointed out that traditionally BZA does not have to meet every one of the standards but it must meet at least one of them. 

Joan Lawler asked if Tommy Dugger wanted to frame a motion around his comments.

Arthur Gay asked Jason Patrick to explain why he wanted item number D read. Jason Patrick answered that the main reason he wanted the language read is because he liked the idea of diversity in housing products here in Nolensville.  Jason wanted to see if the language would allow for one home with the porte-cochere feature to be built.  He said he wanted to get away from sameness in the new developments.  He liked the idea of garages in the back.  He said he understood the time crunch in a for profit business.  He said that he was hopeful there would be a way to allow for Celebration to build one home with the porte-cochere feature.

Mayor Jimmy Alexander came to the podium again and suggested that the BZA was not really the place for this discussion.  He suggested going through a proper process and asking for a text amendment.  He explained that the BZA is not set up for allowing for an experimental type home to be built seeing if it works.  He said that the committee was getting the cart before the horse and that it really should go through the right process with a sponsor offering a text amendment.

Bob Notestine explained that the variance process involves a determination, usually by the staff that the request does not comply with the zoning ordinance.  So the reason you have the BZA is consider an appeal or a request to the board of appeals or a change to the zoning ordinance.  The idea is to make a case by case determination based on hardship.  The board must plan up or down.  He said that the group must dispose of it tonight by looking at the hardship standards.  No hardship then no legal basis to approve it.  The committee is acting as a semi judicial body.  BZA is not set up to hear a variance on every lot.  Bob Notestine said he agreed with Mayor Jimmy Alexander that the real way to effect change is to change the zoning ordinance.  

Tommy Dugger asked is there any harm to the public welfare with this design and may we grant one variance.  He asked if that substantially impaired the intent.  He said he did not think so.  Tommy Dugger made a motion to grant a variance for lot 94 only because there is not harm to the public welfare. 

Joan Lawler asked about next steps and Bob Notestine explained that the committee only votes on what is before them. 
Arthur Gay asked if committee is hindering the process for another board and Bob Notestine said no. 

Bob Notestine said that BOMA’s passage of a zoning ordinance does not hang on what this committee does.  Bob Notestine explained that if a BZA decision is appealed it goes to Court, not to BOMA.

Joan Lawler asked Tommy Dugger to restate his motion. 

Tommy Dugger moved to approve the variance request for Lot 94 since there was no harm to public welfare and the variance did not impair the intent of the ordinance. 

Then Arthur Gay seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.  Arthur Gay said for the builders to make it great. 
Bob Notestine suggested that when Arthur Gay said this he is hinting that the developers not come back for another variance. 

Michael Katsaitis says he will not return with another variance request. 

6.  OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7.  ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler asked about adjournment.  Tommy made a motion for adjournment and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. 
The meeting adjourned at 7:38 PM.
2017-05 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
May 11, 2017 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Arthur Gay, Joan Lawler, Mike Donaho and Wade Wakefield

Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle

Meeting Called to Order: Chairperson Joan Lawler at 7:00 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance:    Chairperson Joan Lawler

Approval of Minutes: Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 1/12/17 BZA meeting with one exception.  Mike Donaho’s name is to be added to the Members Present at that meeting. It was seconded by Wade Wakefield.  The motion passed unanimously.

No announcements were made.

Joan began the meeting saying that tonight the committee would be looking at a variance request for expansion of a roof on a non-conforming accessory building in the SR district at 1126 Waller Road.  Mr. Raymond McMaster is the person with the application. 

Mr. Raymond McMaster takes the podium. 

Joan asks for opening comments but since Raymond did not have introductory comments Joan opened it up to the Board for questions. 

Arthur “Trey” Gay asks if Raymond is here to expand a roof?

Raymond describes the project saying he is replacing a roof that fell several years ago and moving it to another portion of the barn.  There was 960 square feet at one time.  It was about 340 feet that fell down in the storm a few years ago.  The purpose would be storage of some farm equipment.  The barn is not that big and does not fit his tractor.  Raymond wants to make it square shaped rather than L shaped to park the equipment. 

Arthur “Trey” Gay asks is it going to be an addition and Raymond says, no it will be on the NE side, not the South side, and more of a roof shelter.  He says he isn’t making it bigger but just replacing the square footage and putting it on the other side. 

Tommy Dugger adds that he visited with Mr. McMaster today and at first was not keen on the project but after meeting with him and seeing the property, he is for the project.  Tommy would like to say the barn is not visible from the road or the street.  Overall it would help Raymond to get the equipment out of sight. 

Trey adds that it is not an eye sore to the public because Raymond works hard to keep the place nice. 

Bob points out that this project is not harmful to public interest. 

Joan and Tommy ask if anyone else wishes to speak?

Tommy moves for approval of the project and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconds the motion. 

Tommy speaks on behalf of the Town saying that our hearts and prayers go out to Bob and his family because Bob’s wife passed away in the early hours of Wednesday morning. 

Joan adjourns the meeting at 7:09 pm. 

Minutes taken by Cristin Webb.
2017-01 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
January 12, 2017 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Arthur Gay, Joan Lawler, and Wade Wakefield

Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle

Meeting Called to Order: Chairperson Joan Lawler at 7:03 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance:    Chairperson Joan Lawler

Approval of Minutes: Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 11/10/16 BZA meeting. It was seconded by Wade Wakefield.  The motion passed unanimously.

New Business:

1. There was carryover business from the last BZA Meeting:  A conditional use permit was requested to allow for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit located at 9853 Clovercroft Rd.

Chairperson Joan Lawler noted that there were issues concerning primary and secondary doors and visibility from the primary doors to the street.  The additional issue of the accessory building being attached to the house was discussed.  It does appear to meet the minimum square footage requirement. 

James Fincher of 179 Clarington Cl, Franklin, TN, employee of Mac Constructors requested a deferral until the next meeting. 

Tom White from the law firm of Tune, Entrekin and White, P.C spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mac Constructors.  Tom says he believes that the company met the conditions of use.  Tom believes that the legal conditions have been met.  Tom has spoken with the Town attorney Bob Notestine and the staff at Town Hall in advance to make certain there was concurrence and Mac met all the conditions.  Mr. Fincher is present and the company asks respectfully that this be approved. 

Bob Notestine noted that most of the things he sees are variance requests but this is not a request for use.  Under the zoning ordinance this is a permitted use if the conditions are met in Section 2.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  He noted that there are about seven conditions and Sarah and I have met and spoken about this.  Sarah concurred with Bob. 
Mike Donoho asked about square footage. 

Bob Notestine says that under the ordinance, the accessory structure cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. 

Mr. White noted the project is at 875 square feet.

Tommy Dugger noted that now the primary entrance has moved from the west to the east side.

Arthur Gay asked if the change was made to gain favor with the Board.  Tom White said yes, we are trying to make it less visible from the road.  This is less offensive and less visible.  
 
Chairperson Lawler asked if there was a motion or if there was further discussion.

Mike Donoho made a motion to approve the project based on the fact that they meet the requirements.  The Chairperson asked if there was a second for the motion.  Arthur Gay seconded the motion. 

No announcements were made.

Tommy Dugger moved to adjourn.  Arthur Gay seconded the motion. 

Meeting was adjourned at 7:11 PM.