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

2019

2019 Minutes

2019-05 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, May 9, 2019
 
Members Present:  Joan Lawler, Mike Donoho, and Tommy Dugger

Staff Present: Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator, Counsel Bob Notestine, Judith Caporossi, Codes Assistant

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:58 p.m. by Chairman Joan Lawler.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Lawler announced the first order of business was approval of last meetings minutes. Commissioner Dugger moved to approve the minutes from 4/11/2019 BZA meeting and Commissioner Donoho seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the minutes stand approved.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements were made.

5. NEW BUSINESS

Chairman Lawler announced that tonight there was one case for a variance to allow for the reduction in size of 7 lots in Nolen Mill and adjust property lines to relocate the trail from private property to open space.

Wes Harris with Ragan Smith represented the builder (Clayton Properties Group, Inc., dba Goodall Homes) who purchased the lots. Mr. Harris stated the zone requires 20,000 sq. ft. and these lots were already at a minimum. The public walking trail crosses those lots, and the builder would like to minimally move the trail out of the lots into the open space.

There was some discussion about the best options for the homeowners and the lots. Commissioner Dugger is concerned that this same situation will show up again in Phase 2. Commissioner Donoho suggested that Mr. Harris go back and look at other options before reducing the lot size. After, more discussion Mr. Harris decided to defer his request for now.

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Dugger made a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Donoho seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

Minutes taken by Judith Caporossi
2019-04 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, April 11, 2019
 
Members Present:  Joan Lawler, Wade Wakefield, Mike Donoho, and Tommy Dugger

Staff Present: Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator, Counsel Bob Notestine, Suzanne Brown, Permit Specialist

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

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Dugger moved to approve the minutes from 3/14/2019 BZA meeting and Commissioner Wakefield seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the minutes stand approved.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements were made.

5. NEW BUSINESS

Chairman Lawler announced that tonight there was one case for a variance to encroach 5 ft into the rear set-back and 2 ft into the side set-back for the construction of a pool at 1844 Erlinger Dr.

Ms. Davis, the applicant, represented herself. She stated that she lived at 1844 Erlinger Drive. Ms. Davis stated that they are trying to put a small pool in their backyard.

There was some discussion about the variances Ms. Davis had requested. Chairman Lawler clarified that Ms. Davis wants to encroach 5 ft. into the easement of the back. Chairperson Lawler asked if they would have a concrete slab that would stick out past the exterior wall of your house. Ms. Davis clarified the slab will stick out 2 ft, and then they are having a 6 ft wall built there. Commissioner Dugger asked if Ms. Davis had received approval from her HOA. Ms. Davis informed the board that they had requested more information before giving their final approval.

Commissioner Dugger moved for approval to give a 5 ft variance on the back and a 2 ft variance on the east side because it backed up to open space and was no harm to the public.

Commissioner Wakefield seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None

7. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Dugger made a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
2019-03 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, March 14, 2019

Members Present:  Joan Lawler, Wade Wakefield, Mike Donoho, Bob Nolestine, Arthur Gay, and Tommy Dugger

Staff Present:   Sarah Sitterie, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator

    Judith Caporossi, Codes Assistant

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 Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Lawler announced the first order of business was approval of last meetings minutes. Mr. Dugger moved to approve the minutes from 2/14/2019 BZA meeting and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the minutes stand approved.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements were made.

5. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Lawler announced that tonight there was one case for a variance request to encroach 7 ft. into the rear setback to increase size of the deck and screen in the back porch at 3169 Locust Hollow. She asked for a representative for the case.

   Mr. Don Matthys approached the microphone.

Mr. Matthys stated that he represented himself and his wife. They recently purchased the house at 3169 Locust Hollow. The house had two deficiencies when they purchased the house. The first one was the island in the inside and the second one was the deck. The deck was only 7 ft. wide and 18 ft. long. He requested that the board follow along with him. He provided a packet for each board member with diagrams and pictures. He explained in detail his exhibits and pictures which expressed their need for a variance. His last exhibit was an e-mail he received from the property managers which stated that they are approved through the HOA to build the deck.

Mr. Wakefield asked Mr. Matthys to refer to C1. If we looked at the upper deck, the screened in portion, how much further out was it coming from the house.

Mr. Matthys replied currently it was 7 ft and we wanted another 7 ft.  He suggested they look at Exhibit B, in the middle of this exhibit they saw a yellow highlighted area which is the deck that they requested to add on to. So, the deck would be 14ft out and 20 ft long.

Mr. Wakefield asked if Mr. Matthys would have to cut down one of the trees.

Mr. Matthys replied yes, it was a 65 ft tree.

Mr. Donoho asked Ms. Sitterle if Don Swartz looked into the TDEC buffer zones on that creek.

Ms. Sitterle replied he did not.

Mr. Dugger added it’s just a wet weather conveyance.

Mr. Mathis stated there might be an inch or two which ran through the creek but it dissipated within an hour or two.

Mr. Gay added it’s a swale. Developers called it a swale. Mr. Gay asked Mr. Matthys if he was aware of any utilities around or near that swale.

Mr. Matthys replied no. Their house had natural gas and they knew where the line is. As far as he knows, there are no utilities. They will not be digging except for the footings.

Mr. Donoho suggested Mr. Matthys looked into the TDEC buffer zone requirements. He stated he is a project manager for an Engineer Firm. He has saw far less be called a blue line stream and if it was a blue line stream, TDEC would have regulations on the set-back for the buffer from the top of the creek.

Mr. Gay commented that would be separate from their decision.

Chairperson Lawler asked if they should delay the decision.

Mr. Donoho stated that the board could make the decision because he asked for a variance, however for Mr. Mathis’ piece of mind he should check into the buffer zones.

Chairperson Lawler asked if there was any further discussion.

Mr. Dugger commented on what a wonderful presentation Mr. Mathis had presented.

Mr. Gray agreed that Mr. Donoho gave some important info that they should check into, however, that is separate from the decision about to be made. Mr. Gay also commented on Mr. Matthys wonderful presentation and thanked the neighbors for being present to give their support. Mr. Gay suggested moved to approve due to no harm to the public and no financial gain.

Mr. Donoho seconded the motion.

Chairperson Lawler asked all in favor. The motion passed unanimously.

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None

7. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Lawler made a motion to adjourn. The motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 PM
Minutes taken by Judith Caporossi
2019-02 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, February 14, 2019

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

Staff Present:   Sarah Sitterie, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator

Judith Caporossi, Codes Assistant

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 Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Lawler announced the first order of business was approval of last meetings minutes. Mr. Dugger moved to approve the minutes from 1/10/2019 BZA meeting and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the minutes stand approved.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements were made.

5. NEW BUSINESS

Chairperson Lawler announced that tonight there was one case for a variance request for exterior side set-back and interior side setbacks for properties 1626 & 1628 Sunset Road. She asked for a representative for the case.
Tony Taliaferro and Tony Snyder represented the variance case. Mr. Taliaferro was the owner of the property and Mr. Snyder was with Snyder Engineering who spoke regarding the configuration of the lots. Mr. Taliaferro handed out pictures to the board.

Mr. Taliaferro talked about the homes he would like to build. He does not want the homes to face the recycling lot on Owen Road. He would like to have a variance on the Owen Road side, and plant some cypress trees to block the recycling center.
Chairperson Lawler, agreed and asked for a discussion.
Mr. Dugger asked if Mr. Taliaferro wanted to sub-divide the property into three lots.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that lot 1 & lot 2 would face Sunset Road and lot 3 would face Owen Road in the back. He stated that the lots are narrow and long. He did not want to put the narrow houses that were popping up all over Nashville, he would like to put a nicer house there, but I would need a little slack on the variances on each side.
Chairperson Lawler asked about Lot 3, and if it was going to be looking out at Owen Road. She asked if work had been done yet, or was he leaving it for later.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that he was going to work on lot 1, then lot 2, and then lot 3 last.
Mr. Wakefield asked if lot 1 and lot 2 are listed as one lot.
Mr. Taliaferro replied, lot 1 will be the first, lot 2 will be the second, and lot 3 will be the third lot.
Mr. Dugger added it’s two narrow lots now.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that the lots were very narrow. He planned to put a row of trees down Owen Road to make it pretty.
Mr. Dugger asked how wide was the lot.
Mr. Taliaferro replied 85 feet. He stated with the setbacks It’s a mighty narrow house.
Mr. Dugger stated Mr. Taliaferro understood that when he bought the lot.
Mr. Taliaferro replied he learned it soon enough.
Mr. Dugger asked what kind of variance he was asking for.
Mr. Snyder discussed the drawing of the lots. The property line went all the way back between Lot 1 and lot 2. We were sub-dividing 2 lots into 3.
Mr. Dugger asked why the lots couldn’t be divided in half and just have two big lots.
Mr. Snyder replied because at least one of them would be facing the transfer station.
Mr. Dugger asked why it couldn’t face the road, it comes out from Sunset. He explained Mr. Taliaferro could have one facing North and one facing South, then he wouldn’t need a variance.
Mr. Snyder replied that with one house facing Owen Road and one facing Sunset Road, he would still have 2 lots that could front on Sunset Road and neither home would have to face the transfer station. We would like to keep that and add the third lot because the lots are so big, we don’t know who would need a lot so long, that was our thinking.
Mr. Taliaferro stated that the transfer station was going to hurt him. He’s afraid people aren’t going to buy the house if it’s facing the transfer station.
Mr. Dugger confirmed that the transfer station was there when he bought the lot.
Mr. Taliaferro replied affirmatively.
Chairperson Lawler asked that they don’t have any concern that lot 3 would be facing Owen Road.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that he would rather have one house facing the transfer station as opposed to all 3. He said at least 2 homes facing Sunset Road would be better.
Mr. Dugger stated that to grant the variance, he would need to show us some type of hardship and he thought the hardship he was placing, he created by wanting to put 3 houses on a lot that was built for 2.
Mr. Taliaferro asked if he wasn’t allowed to have 3.8 houses on this much land.
Mr. Dugger replied he didn’t know.
Mr. Snyder added if he was not going to sub-divide the lots and was only going to build two houses,  he had a little bit of a hardship because in order to build the house he wanted to build, he can’t do it without some leeway on the setbacks. If he built homes that didn’t have garages in the front, even if he didn’t sub-divide, he would need a variance. Obviously, he could build a house there without sub-dividing, he could build two houses, but they would have the garages in the front.
Mr. Taliaferro interjected that is what he was trying to prevent from doing.
Mr. Snyder continued he would want this variance anyway even if he didn’t sub-divide. So, the third lot in the back was there because the lots are so long, it just made it common sense since he had that availability.
Mr. Dugger asked how much more value would he have if he just split the lots into two. One facing Sunset Road and one facing Owen Road and then informed them that one of the houses will be facing Owen Road regardless.
Mr. Taliaferro replied if he understood It correctly from the Town of Nolensville, he can have 3.8 houses on that land. He said he would just prefer to do 3 houses.
Mr. Dugger added it might be enough land, but he would need to get a variance.
Mr. Snyder asked if he could just chop it off in the middle, and have one face…
Mr. Dugger interjected he was not saying what he can do, he was saying if he sub-divided in the middle than he wouldn’t need a variance.
Mr. Snyder added if he had only bought lot 2 then he would have to build a house with a garage in the front. Or, if he had bought lot 1, he could face the other way, but it wouldn’t have worked out.
Mr. Dugger noted that he heard his argument.
Mr. Snyder added so if he had only bought lot 2, he would have that issue.
Chairperson Lawler added she echoed Tommy.
Mr. Taliaferro asked if he should do one house where 3 is facing and do one house where 1 & 2 were.
Chairperson Lawler replied she was not trying to tell him what he must do.
Mr. Taliaferro added the lots were just so long, so he would like to build three houses. He’d love to just build one humongous one, but he didn’t know if he could sell it.
Mr.Dugger added they built a huge one right down the street from him and they sold it.
Mr. Dugger added we were not trying to design his lot or tell him how to build his house, but he didn’t think he was in agreement for any variance.
Mr. Taliaferro asked if there was an opportunity to change the request.
Mr. Dugger stated his application stated a certain variance and that was what we were here to vote on tonight. It was certainly not our place to design his lot or to tell him what to build, but evidently, we had a lot of neighbors that were concerned, or they wouldn’t be here tonight.
Mr. Taliaferro added these were the same neighbors that he had left the trees up for them when they asked me to.
Chairperson Lawler noted with the consideration that the hardships was not self-imposed, it seems to her, he was self-imposing some limitations because he had already demonstrated he didn’t have any concerns with house #3 facing the convenience center.
Mr Taliaferro added it was the only choice he had.
Mr. Dugger stated that’s not the only choice he had.
Chairperson Lawler added he had several other choices about what to do with 1626 and 1628 Sunset Road. Her inclination would be to not grant the variance when she thought there were other things he could do. HIs desire to not have them face the convenience center, he was self-imposing how he wanted them to face and how he wanted them to look. She had difficulty with that.
Mr. Dugger asked about the pictures. He asked about the last picture and if that was the one he didn’t want to build.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that in the sub-division behind him all the houses look the same. He was wanting to build something different. He added that everybody’s got the garage in the front, and he was trying not to do that.
Mr. Dugger pointed out that the first picture he sent has the garage in the front and noted the conflicting statement.
Mr. Taliaferro replied it did. He noted the second picture is the one (Mr. Taliaferro walked away from the microphone to discuss the pictures)
Mr. Dugger noted that Mr. Taliaferro said the first three houses were the ones he really wanted to build.
Mr. Taliaferro stated that he misspoke, he would like to build a house with no garage in the front.
Mr. Dugger replied he didn’t know if on a lot that narrow he was ever going to put something with a garage in the rear.
Mr. Taliaferro stated he could have them come down on Owen Road and have the garage in the rear.
Mr. Dugger asked what he was going to do on lot 2.
Mr. Taliaferro exclaimed he would just do two houses.
Chairperson Lawler asked Mr. Taliaferro if he wanted to withdraw his application
Mr. Taliaferro replied well if they weren’t going to grant it then he might as well.
Mr. Snyder added they did not want to withdraw. He mentioned they would like the Board to vote on it. He thought with the granting of his variance that he could get a driveway around the back of those wider houses and have the garages in the back.
Mr. Dugger asked how he would handle the house on lot 2.
Mr. Snyder suggested he may do some type of drive-way in 9 ft. and thought his plan was to do a shared drive-way in-between.
Chairperson Lawler added that people purchasing the homes would be aware of the convenience center and putting a garage at the rear would not change that.
Mr. Snyder asked do you mean when you are driving in?
Chairperson Lawler replied like you are going home, when you are going in and out.
Mr. Snyder added it was not shown on the exhibit but lots 1 & 2 have a parcel on the right, and had an easement down the front, parallel to Sunset Road to access that parcel. He asked if Chairperson Lawler was saying it kind of defeats the purpose if the owner of lot 1 drives up Owen Road and came up the back.
Chairperson Lawler replied yes, because it was obvious.
Mr. Snyder added he thought a design would include a drive-way in the front where a visitor would come park in the front, like a circular drive-way, and not use the garage. Obviously, the owners would know they lived next to the convenience center.
Chairperson Lawler noted if they were to approach this from a different perspective, as Tommy suggested, then we probably wouldn’t be here discussing this variance. There’s probably enough area to put two very nice houses.
Mr. Taliaferro agreed.
Chairperson Lawler asked if Mr. Taliaferro was withdrawing?
Mr. Snyder added no, he thought the Board should vote on it.
Mr. Wakefield suggested that there was someone that would like to speak.
Chairperson Lawler asked the person if they wanted to speak.
Mr. Richard Flynn a representative from Sunset Park approached the podium and stated his name and he had a question for Tony if he could ask, a general question regarding the impact that these new houses will have to Sunset Park. He asked if they encroached on the properties of Sunset Park.
Mr. Snyder answered that our plan to sewer these lots included a force main sewer (Metro sewer). A force main was a little different from a gravity sewer, it’s an 1 ½ inch line, it would go up to the north, north-east corner and follow the property line over and go over to the street and tie in to the man hole. There is no encroachment.
Mr. Flynn approached the drawing, for clarification and asked this short line would connect over here.
Mr. Snyder replied yes, right along that property line.
Chairperson Lawler asked Mr. Flynn, if he knew what the easement was between his property line.
Mr. Dugger added that there is either a lot or open space on that corner.
Mr. Snyder pointed to the drawing explaining that the sewer line will follow the property line and there is a 10 ft. public utility. That would be used to connect the manhole.
Chairperson Lawler asked if that answered his Mr. Flynn’s question.
Mr. Flynn continued the concern as property owners is that it was all developed property. The properties were all nicely landscaped, and many of the property owners have fencing, so it appears it would be quite an impact to the property owners for this new utility or sewer. He wondered what was the plan for that and help us to understand how it impacted these property owners.
Mr. Dugger added that was a concern, but that’s not on our agenda tonight. If there was an easement and if they get outside that easement then that’s a concern
Mr. Flynn replied he understood what easements were for, but he thought there was a request for this development to increase the size of the easement in order to construct the sewer line and he thought some of the property owners were concerned that this would adversely affect their property if the easement size was increased.
Mr. Taliaferro replied that there was no need to widen the easement now.
Mr. Flynn asked, if the easement would be about 5 ft.
Mr. Taliaferro replied it was 5 feet on each side.
Mr. Dugger added it’s 5 feet on each side so it’s a total of 10 feet.
Mr. Flynn nodded he understood and asked was it a variance to increase the easement or was there 10 ft on the easement available? Do you know?
Mr. Snyder explained the subdivision plat for Sunset Park shows the easement on all property lines. We would have the easement as well if we sub-divide.
Chairperson Lawler asked, do all lots in Sunset Park have 10 feet, or 5 foot easements.
Mr. Snyder replied yes.
Chairperson Lawler commented that her neighborhood does not have easements on each lot.
Mr. Snyder commented that the neighbors were concerned and that’s good. There concerns will be addressed if we decide to sub-divide
Chairperson Lawler suggested that Mr. Flynn, Mr. Taliaferro, and Mr. Snyder come to some understanding with the town on what will happen with those sewer easements. We need to decide on the case. 
Mr. Dugger addressed Mr. Flynn, that they will have to submit a site plan and that will be another opportunity for everyone to discuss concerns.
Mr. Flynn asked if they would get notification on that meeting.
Sarah Sitterie answered usually we send out notifications to adjacent neighbors when there was a sub-division request.
Chairperson Lawler asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Dugger replied he made a motion since he didn’t think his request met any of our guidelines, our 4 guidelines for the variance. He made a motion to deny.
Chairperson Lawler asked if there was a second?
Mr. WakefIeld stated he would second the motion. All voted in favor.
Chairperson Lawler stated the motion passes.

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None

7. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dugger asked for a motion to adjourn.
Chairperson Lawler made a motion and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
2019-01 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, January 10, 2019

Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Mike Donoho & Wade Wakefield

Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney

Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator

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 Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.

3.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Mr. Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 12/13/18 BZA meeting and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

4.  ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.

5.  NEW BUSINESS

Chairperson Lawler announced that item C on the agenda had been withdrawn.

Chairperson Lawler introduced item A on the agenda and asked for a representative to speak.

Drs. Barry and Brad Fly represented the variance cases for the Nolensville Veterinary Clinic. The doctors discussed the buildings and parking variance request. The rear storage buildings were discussed. It was acknowledged that any changes would require them to get permits from the Codes Department.  The buffer item was mentioned and that the neighbor preferred not to have the fence or buffer because of a lack of visibility for the Revive Church building.  The Dollar General Store was mentioned and that the site did not have a buffer. 

Mr. Dugger asked a question about the storage building at the rear of the property and the use of the upstairs area.
Dr. Barry Fly clarified that the upstairs area was used for a staff person that watches the animals overnight that have had surgery. He further informed the Board that the area had been used as Dr. Wooten’s former office and that there was no living facility. They indicated that the upstairs area was the only part of the building that was heated and cooled. The doctors noted that the building was valuable for them for storage and that it was needed space.

Mr. Donoho added that when he toured the back building it was noted that there were stalls and that the entrance to the building was a large sliding barn door and it was not air tight. He mentioned that the floor had varying elevations as well.
The doctors noted that there would be a lot of renovations that would be needed to change the use of the building.
Mr. Blake Turner, engineer from T-Squared Engineering that represented Drs. Barry and Brad Fly discussed concerns about the buffer.
Dr. Brad Fly indicated that they have had a good relationship with Revive Church, and they did not want to do anything that the church did not want regarding the buffer.
Chairperson Lawler asked the Board if they wanted to consider the variance requests individually and handle the single building variance first.
Dr. Barry Fly noted that the Town Engineer had made a point in the response memo that the origin of the 4,000 square foot veterinary clinic facility was not known, but it had been a part of the Ordinance for many years and that a medical building could have a square footage of 20,000 square feet and the uses were similar.
Dr. Brad Fly noted that they had specialized equipment that needed dedicated space to use the machines, and space for exam rooms.
Mr. Donoho noted that it appeared that the Ordinance had not kept up with the practice of veterinary medicine.
Chairperson Lawler asked for staff’s comments.
Ms. Sitterle noted that the 4,000 square feet limitation was likely a carryover from previous versions of the Ordinance and unusual in comparison with medical facilities.
Mr. Donoho made a motion to approve the variance for the square footage of the single veterinary clinic building due to no harm to the public welfare. Mr. Dugger seconded the motion.
Chairperson Lawler asked for further discussion.
Mr. Dugger indicated that he had a better understanding of the facility at the back and that they would have to submit site plans before the owners could do anything with the back buildings.
Chairperson Lawler noted the motion, a second to the motion and discussion and asked for a vote. All voted in favor.
Chairperson Lawler asked the Board to consider item 2 for the transition screening.
Mr. Dugger noted that a person from Revive Church may want to speak.
Mr. Randy Taylor, an Elder from Revive Church mentioned that they would rather have no barrier between the veterinary clinic and the church. They had different operating hours and would prefer to leave the situation as is.
Dr. Barry Fly noted that they already had a barrier at the front of the property due to the large setback and existing landscaping.
Chairperson Lawler asked for a motion.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to approve the request due to no harm to the public and said that there would be no screening needed instead of the buffer. Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion.
Chairperson Lawler asked for discussion and there was none. All voted in favor.
Chairperson Lawler introduced item 3 for the parking reduction variance for the veterinary clinic.
Mr. Dugger asked if there was enough parking available for the 7,187 square feet of building with the addition. 
Chairperson Lawler indicated that was the case with 36 spaces provided at 200 square feet per space calculated for veterinary clinics.
Dr. Barry Fly noted there were a few more spaces at the back of the storage building that were not striped.
Chairperson Lawler noted that the requirement had been met for the handicap parking spaces as well.
Mr. Dugger asked if the addition had been corrected on the plan for the parking.
Mr. Turner noted that they had not done a resubmittal, but that it had been corrected.
Chairperson Lawler asked for a motion.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to allow the reduction in parking with a few conditions
1. The back building only to be used for storage and occasional stay over by staff but not a full-time apartment.
2. They would have to come back to the BZA for an additional increase in parking if anything were to change with the back buildings.
Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion and there was no discussion. All voted in favor.
Chairperson Lawler introduced item B on the agenda for a variance for a 1,950 square foot building at 2564C York Road.
Mr. John Mason represented the variance request. He indicated to the Board that they were looking to construct a house on the property in two years and that they wanted to put the storage building there first.
Chairperson Lawler noted that the plan submitted showed the intention to build a house approximately 200 feet back and that her question was a carryover from the previous meeting regarding the timing of building the house. She asked when that was going to be accomplished.
Mr. Mason indicated that they were planning to build the home in approximately 2 years by August 2020.
Chairperson Lawler indicated she was not seeing that information.
Mr. Mason indicated it was in the application for the appeal and on the application form from October.
Mr. Dugger had a question for counsel that the application in the packet did not have a received date.
Ms. Sitterle clarified that the application form had been excluded from the packet by mistake. 
Mr. Notestine asked what the difference was between the previous application and the one they were considering.
Mr. Mason responded that the previous application was an appeal, and this was a variance for building the storage structure.
Mr. Notestine noted for the Board that the application before them was a variance and that the four points in the Ordinance would apply to the case. He mentioned that Mr. Mason was asking for a variance from the accessory structure standards.
Mr. Wakefield asked if Mr. Mason was living on the property now in the structure labeled “house”.
Mr. Mason noted there was nothing on the property now and that it was vacant.
Mr. Donoho asked if Mr. Mason had a chance to speak with his neighbors.
Mr. Mason indicated that they have spoken to the neighbors and that they do not have an issue with what he was proposing as far as he knew.
Mr. Dugger mentioned that the lack of awareness of the neighbor’s impression of the proposal was a concern.
Mr. Mason indicated that the property owner behind him did not have an issue and had submitted an email to the Town that indicated he did not have an issue.  He asked staff whether notification had gone out this time to neighbors.
Ms. Sitterle answered that letters had been sent to adjacent property owners and no responses had been sent in to staff.
Chairperson Lawler indicated that what Mr. Mason was asking for was to place a secondary building on property ahead of a primary building.
Mr. Mason stated he was asking to place a building on a piece of property and was not aware of the codes information.  He was asking for a building to be built two years ahead of the house he would like to construct on the property.
Mr. Notestine indicated that the Town had looked at the accessory building regulations in the past regarding limiting the size of a structure because a 2,000 square foot building might become a living residence or be a commercial building in a residential zone. Concerns also centered around a building becoming an attractive nuisance that could be broken into.
Mr. Dugger asked Mr. Mason what kind of assurances he could offer the Town that the house will be built by August 2020.
Mr. Mason asked what guarantees were necessary.
Mr. Dugger asked Mr. Mason what happens if he doesn’t build the house.
Mr. Mason said he didn’t know.
Chairperson Lawler asked if there were any building plans for the house.
Mr. Mason indicated that they were planning on getting a Drees home.
Chairperson Lawler stated that the building plans might be a step in the right direction to demonstrate building the house.
Mr. Dugger indicated there were no guarantees that Mr. Mason would build the single-family dwelling.
Mr. Notestine indicated that sometimes conditions are applied with cases, but the Town was not interested in tearing down buildings.
Mr. Wakefield asked what Mr. Mason wanted to do with the accessory building.
Mr. Mason indicated the family wanted to have chickens, a vineyard, and a tractor that would be stored in the building.  Mr. Mason indicated that the desire was to have his child attend Nolensville High School.
Mr. Dugger stated that Mr. Mason should have done his due diligence and seeing whether the property would perk before purchasing.  He indicated that sewer may never get to the property.
Mr. Mason indicated that sewer was possible and that he had a letter from Metro Nashville Water for the sewer availability and that Metro had approved the connections to Telfair and at Silver Stream.
Mr. Donoho had trouble with the Ordinance the way it was configured now for storage buildings.
Mr. Wakefield had an issue with putting an accessory structure on a piece of property before a house was built.
Mr. Mason indicated that he had an issue carrying two mortgages at once but had intention to build the house in two years.
Mr. Dugger stated that the Board did not know what the outcome would be and that was a concern.
Mr. Mason discussed the zoning of the property and that he did not want to debate the Ordinance.
Mr. Dugger stated the Board was there to uphold the Ordinance and that there had to be a good reason to grant a variance.
Chairperson Lawler asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Dugger asked Mr. Notestine a question regarding motions.
Mr. Notestine mentioned that some action had to be taken by the Board.
Mr. Mason asked if he could withdraw his application again.
Mr. Notestine noted that he could always withdraw the application.
Mr. Mason withdrew his application.

6.  OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7.  ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Lawler asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.