Commission - Regular Meeting

If I could have your attention, please, I'll call the meeting to order. This is the September meeting of the Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals. We appreciate everyone taking time out of your schedule to join us this morning. We have a prepared agenda that's been advertised. Do we have anyone here who has a case on our agenda that would like to have that case deferred to another meeting or withdrawn in its entirety? If we have none, the agenda will remain as advertised. We have a court recorder here with us this morning that's taking a record of our proceedings. The court recorder is provided at the expense of Wilson County. If you would like a transcript of a particular case, the transcript will be at your expense and you would need to see the court recorder at the conclusion of our meeting this morning. As a reminder to everyone, if you would please silence your cell phones. Once we call each case this morning, I'll read the case number and the request that's being made. I'll also then at that point ask the staff for their recommendations. The board will be relying on the staff recommendations as we make our decisions. When your case is called, if you would please, if you're the applicant, please come to the podium, give us your name and address for the record, and then you can make any statement to the board that you'd like to make. After the applicant has had the opportunity to make a statement to the board if they wish to, then we'll also call for anyone else who wishes to speak in support of or in opposition to each case. If you do plan to make a statement in front of the board, you'll need to be sworn in. So at this time, if you intend to speak, if you would please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in front of this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you. Just as a reminder to everyone this morning, the meeting is being taped for later presentation on Wilson County TV on the YouTube platform if you want to take a look at it at a later time. Our board is a little different than some of the other boards. We have a public comment period with each case. So if you're interested in the case, you'll have the opportunity to speak. The state legislature requires that every public meeting of the government now has a general public comment period. Again, you'll be allowed to address any particular case when we call it. But do we have anyone this morning who wishes to make comments in regard to the public comment period? And if not, I'll close the public comment period. Turning to the board. You were sent several days ago. The minutes from our August meeting and you've had a chance to look over those. At this time to have any corrections. From our minutes of our August meeting. And hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the month of August?

Motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve the minutes from August. Does she have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the approval of the minutes, vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. And the ayes have it. Okay. We'll move into our first case now. Our first case is case 4429 Mike Sanders. Variance for an accessory structure that crosses the rear property line onto family property. Variance of 5 feet from the setback requirement of 8 feet between structures for an existing structure that is 3 feet from the existing house. Grants of 7 feet from the South side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for an existing structure that is 3 feet from the South side property line. Variance of 5 feet from the rear property yard setback requirement of 10 feet for existing accessory structures that are 5 foot and 8 foot from the rear property line. The variance, the variances are needed for the applicant to replace the existing pool that will meet all setback requirements. We get staff comments now on 4429.

Mr. Chair, the applicant is requesting a variance for an accessory structure that crosses the rear property line, as well as a variance of five feet from the setback requirement between structures, a variance of seven feet from the south side yard setback, and a variance of five feet from the rear yard setback requirement for existing accessory structures on the property. the permit for the original pool was issued in 2001. this is not an old attractive record with a lot being created in may of 1978 therefore given the language in the zoning ordinance staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request staff is also unable to grant any sort of variance request on a structure that crosses a property line okay who's here to represent 4429 sanders yes sir mike said good morning morning address please 40 40 legal road all right what would you like to tell the board sir

Well, like I say, back in 2001, we put an original pool in. It's just an above-ground pool with a deck around it. And that pool become of no use. The sidewalls got dangerous and time to replace it. So we waited a little bit for things to come back down and stuff, and we removed the old pool. And I honestly never would have thought about coming up here to ask for just to replace something. But the pool company said we need the permit. So I went over to the permit office, thought I'd be in and out in 15 minutes, but here we are. But anyhow, that is the family farm, and I'm not wanting to do anything different other than set a new pool in the old place we ain't building nothing i did have to take half of the deck down because i used to they could replace one inside a deck area but now they can't for some reason so the about half the deck's gone before they can get in there with skid steer or whatever and resand and do all that stuff and uh i've lived in wilson county all my life we've owned that farm since 1955 and i've been there every day so I put on there, never thought a thing about it, you know, and there's no issues with my siblings or anything on it. So I just, the only thing I know to do is come ask, could we put the pool in? I reckon that's all I got to say, and what can we do? Does the board have questions for the applicant?

When you put the pool in before, did you get a permit?

Well, yes, ma'am. Got a copy of it right here.

That's okay.

I'm just asking if you... Mr. Sloan. I believe Mr. Bobby Sloan. It was on 8-14 of 01.

And nothing's been changed?

No, ma'am. Like I say, part of it's been taken down now because it can't be put in like that. But it's the same spot. Nothing moved.

So what I'm hearing is you came up here 25 years ago and got a permit. yes they put the pool in yes everything's good yes and you haven't done anything different since then no sir and that building in question has been there since 1986 and but you come up here a week or two or three ago whenever it was yes back in july july and what was okay in 25 years ago is not okay today but nothing's changed yes that's correct okay other questions from the board

has anything in our zoning ordinance changed that would uh that would uh i guess let him let him get the permit 20 years ago not let it get today is there anything on our end to this change um there's some of the accessory structure setback requirements have changed which he would need variances on as many of the structures grandfathered in in any status if

If we could have found a permit on them, yes. We could not find permits on the accessory structures. Some of what has changed since then is, and I can't speak to 2001, but we have, we do a zoning review of every property. So when we look at a property, we go out and look, we look at the whole property when any permit is being issued now. And I don't know if I can't speak to 2001. I don't know if anybody ever even stepped on the property when he pulled the permit for the pool in 2001. I would assume probably not.

Other questions for the applicant? And at this point, is there anyone else here who wishes to address 4429 Sanders? If not, we'll close public comment. Thank you, sir. And turn into the board now for a motion or further discussion. I'll make a motion that we approve. Let me ask a question, though. Instead of granting a handful of variances on various buildings that don't have any bearing on the real application, which is the pool. Would we be better to just direct the staff to issue the pool permit?

uh i mean yeah that way you're not creating a precedent for a slew of structures i mean if you wanted to um if you wanted to clean it up you could do a separation variance and then just one setback variance because they're all from the rear yard and just take the maximum which would be an eight foot variance which would allow any accessory structures in perpetuity on the property to be two feet from the rear property line if you just wanted to do Slim it down, yes. Or you could just direct the staff to issue the pool permit in lieu of remedying the variance request.

There's a whole basket of things going on here. Yes, sir. I'm concerned with other cases today and next month and the month after. But at the same time, I understand the gentleman's situation with his swimming pool. And obviously the county made a... At some level, made a blunder 25 years ago.

Yes, and I mean, with that request, you'd probably still have to make that request that the staff issue the pool permit due to, I would highly advise you all not to issue a variance on a structure that crosses a property line of any sort.

I don't think we have that type of authority. I think it's confusing to folks that we would not have the authority to issue a variance on the structure that crosses a property line, although it is a family property line, it's still a property line.

That is correct.

Okay, well, you made a motion. Does he have a second?

Second.

The motion that Howard's made is to approve the variances. I think we would be better off issuing a directive to issue the pool permit and not getting into the variances because one of those variances is the building that crosses the property line.

I'll change my motion. Okay, exactly what you said, but the issue that.

so certificate for the pool well let's withdraw yours okay i'll withdraw okay now now uh the motion would then be to chris help me with this the motion would then be to to set aside the request for the setbacks and issue the pool permit

Right, you would just, you would relay to staff that they issued a pool permit with no variances being granted. Now that's gonna clean up the pool permit. If he ever comes in with any other sort of permit on the property, he's gonna be right back in front of you with the decision, does not clean the property up.

A whole different set of issues.

But yeah, you can just issue staff the directive to issue the pool permit as it was submitted.

That's your motion? Yes. We have that motion on the floor. Does he have a second?

Second.

I have a motion now and a second. The motion is to direct the staff to issue the pool permit and not deal with the other various variances. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion?

Before we vote, just very quickly... these will stay with the property if he wanted to sell the property if he wanted to to do something again these these this parents issues would would reappear is that correct they would okay i'm i'm good with that i'm good with that i like that they would we're not we're not doing that we're just letting you put a pool back where the whole pool was telling staff not cleaning up all the other stuff um

Okay, so we've got a motion, second, discussion. If there's no other discussion, all in favor of the motion, vote aye.

Aye.

Opposition vote no. The ayes have it. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it. What do I need to do now?

I think after the meeting, you need to see Ms. Murphy's office.

All right.

I appreciate that, Ron.

Thank you very much.

Just for my record, Sonia, are you still the one that seconded that? Okay.

Where did Craig go? Deputy. I appreciate him being in here, if somebody wants to holler at him. Okay, our next case is case 4430, Tara Johns. Variance of 298 feet from the requirement of 800 square feet in order to make the existing single-family residence into a secondary dwelling unit. The variance will allow the property owner to build a new single-family residence. Property location is 4401 Oregon Road, Lot 5. Tax map is 171, parcel is 30.01, zone A1 agricultural. The size of the property is 7.22 acres. We'll get staff recommendations now on 4430.

Mr. Chair, the applicant is requesting a variance of 298 square feet from the requirement of 800 square feet for a secondary dwelling unit. The maximum square footage for a detached secondary dwelling unit was reduced from 1000 square feet to 800 square feet per county commission in July of 2026. Staff will note that this property does have adequate road frontage and acreage to be subdivided. The permit for the existing home was issued in 2016 and was built in compliance as it was the primary residence on the tract. Given the language in the zoning ordinance, staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request. So there's no issue with the current home. They're just asking to make it the secondary dwelling unit and it is over the 800 square foot threshold.

okay and name and address please sarah johns 4401 oregon road okay and what would you like to tell the board i'm not a public speaker so i'm going to just read this to you i apologize My husband and I were both born and raised in Middle Tennessee and I was brought up in the country and always had a dream to move back to that as an adult. In 2016, my husband and I bought seven acres of land to make that dream a reality. We couldn't afford to build a house right away, so we built a pole barn with a one bedroom, one bath apartment and one end of it with plans to build a house in the future. Our plan was to turn a portion of the secondary dwelling into recreational space once built once we built our house and have space for friends or family to stay when visiting from out of town. Ten years later, we were ready. We spent a year and a half working with an architect to plan our forever home. We hired a builder and were ready to start building until he went to pull our building permit and we were told we couldn't build our home. There had apparently been rules made as of July 21st of this year for secondary dwellings that a living space could only be 800 square feet. When we built our space in 2016 there weren't any rules on that and we're simply asking to be grandfathered in since it would have been impossible to build to rules that simply didn't exist back then. I do want to say honestly and sincerely I do appreciate the effort y'all put forth. to make sure that you protect our county but we're hopeful that you'll accept our variants and allow us to build our house does the board have questions for the applicant is this a home you're not going to rent it out no absolutely not airbnb no no absolutely not we don't even have children so we we like our space the existing

The original dwelling, was it permitted?

It was, yes, sir.

Okay.

Christopher, when... When were the ADUs first allowed?

They said they built this. 2018 and they were first allowed.

600 square feet.

600 square feet is what they came into. They got amended to 1,000 square feet probably and probably finalized in January of 26 and then in July of 26 they knocked it back down to 800.

And I'm thinking she said they built this in July of 2016.

Correct.

They would have never been allowed to have two houses on there. Am I correct, Chris?

Well, yes. For two homes on that property as it sits as one parcel, that is correct. Now, in 2016, it was just permitted as the primary structure. So there's no violation with the home as it sits.

I understood the applicant that she felt like the rules had been changed on her. And I'm of the opinion...

we would have never allowed this building and another house there would have never been allowed that building in another home on the property as it sits now some of the rules have changed she's in a1 that has recently swapped from 40 000 square feet to 80 000 square feet she still has enough to make two tracks i don't know if that was part of the vision was a subdivision and now the acreage threshold plays with that or not i i did not ask the applicant that

But I just want to, for the record, for the applicant, on this one track of land, I don't think you could have ever built your second house on there with the house you had right now, ever.

We were not told that. As a matter of fact, if you look at our septic plot, it even has a space where the proposed house... That's kind of the reason I brought that up.

I felt like you were under the conception at one point in time, the rules were changed, and I don't think they have been.

The rule change allowed you to have... to a secondary yeah uh it's not that the rule change precluded you from having to or or modify the side there was no allowance in the beginning at all so you just couldn't have done it yeah so it's not that somebody didn't tell you that's just that we got a whole two or three inch book full of laws that you know they normally don't go aware of that i'm sorry okay uh other questions from the board yes sir go ahead

the existing if this is if this is okay then you and you're able to build a second home what you it doesn't really make a lot of difference but what your intention is to do with existing structure

The existing structure is mostly garage. We collect cars. So we have several cars in here. The living space, if that's what you're actually asking for, is that we're going to make what is a bedroom now is going to be a recreational space. So literally we have like a race simulator. We have like games. We have a slot car track. We're going to make that into like a rec room basically.

You're not going to consider that any kind of a structure that anybody can stay in?

Well, in that kitchen living area, we're going to make a couch in there. So like a fold-out couch. So if a family member came and wanted to... My mother-in-law lives in Florida. If she wants to stay in there when she comes to visit us, that's it.

But the elements would be there for somebody to live in. As a kitchen, as a bedroom.

I mean, yes, sir.

It would be legally classified as a secondary dwelling unit. Is that correct?

Well, by definition, yes.

So the legal is it's over the footage.

Well, yeah, I know. But yeah, yeah, exactly. But I'm saying that, yeah. And how big is the footage that's in here somewhere?

It's 1,030 square feet, the existing structure.

And if they knocked it down to 800, it wouldn't be an issue?

Correct, but I mean that would be removing part of the structure. We try to stay away from not heating and cooling a part of the structure because then it just gets added back in after the fact.

And when we measure these, we're measuring heated space?

Yes. Now, if it was an existing garage with a garage door, we have allowed those in single-story garages or in two-story garages if you have a 20 by 40. We would allow you to have an upstairs apartment that's been measured in that way and you've had structures that are larger, all in the same footprint where there's an existing residence and then converting it back to the garage space. I don't know what would prohibit them from changing it back to a residential unit after we've left the property.

Any other questions from the board? And anyone else wish to address 4430 Johns? If not, we'll close public hearing and turn to the board for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, the size of the ADUs has been very current. I mean, they went from 600 to 1,000 to 800, so it's been very current, very up-to-date for the last year or two. I see no reason to grant this variance. I move that we deny it based on staff recommendations.

I have a motion to deny it based on staff recommendations. Does he have a second? I'll second. Excuse me. Sonja seconded. All right. Discussion from the board on the motion. If not, all in favor vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. No. Got one no. No. Okay. Four ayes, one no. The motion passes. Thank you all for coming.

So we've been denied? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

So I'm just curious then what we have to cut our living space down to 800 square feet then? So we have to live in our living room in our kitchen while we build essentially is what you're asking us to do.

I'm not asking you to do anything, ma'am. I'm just saying you made a request. We've denied it. 800 feet is the threshold set by the commission very few months ago. So we're assuming they want it enforced.

There is enough acreage there. If you want to get a surveyor involved to split the property, then you won't have a size restriction on either structure.

OK. OK. Our next case. This case 4431. Key for good. variance for five foot from the rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet for a secondary dwelling unit that is five feet from the rear property line and a variance to waive the fee for the adequate facilities tax of five thousand dollars the variance is needed in order for the applicant to receive a zoning compliance certificate to be able to apply for a building permit for a secondary dwelling unit property is located at 200 holloway road lot 3b Van Hook property, parcel 103, excuse me, tax map 103, parcel 50.06. Zoned A1 agricultural. Size of the property is .74 acres. We'll get staff recommendations now on 4431.

Mr the applicant is requesting a variance from 5 feet from the rear yard setback requirement and a variance to waive the fee for the at the ft of $5,000 for a secondary dwelling unit. The became effective for secondary dwelling units in July of 2026. the applicant has provided documentation showing that the structure was placed on the property prior to this date. and that is in your packet. And the structure meets the size requirement for secondary dwelling units. This is not an older tract of record with the lot being created in September of 87. Therefore, given the language in the zoning order, staff cannot recommend approval of the setback variance request. Staff does not have ability to waive AAFTs. However, the board may consider this request. Staff will note that this property is currently under violation for unserviceable vehicles and the applicant is currently in process of getting those removed.

Okay. Who's here to represent 4431 good keeper good?

Yes Sir, your address place 200 Holloway Rd and what would you like to tell the board? I. Had they building place there October of 2023? It's been there for about three years. I didn't know at the time that I needed a permit, just. I just always thought that living outside of city limits I could do whatever I wanted, which is coming to my attention that that's not true. So. i don't know i just had you know a notice on the fence saying hey this building's not on record um so we came in and talked to um came in and talked to staff the staff and they're like look this is what this is what you need to do um i did get a quote to move that building um as far as the setback goes um it's gonna cost me about twelve hundred dollars to move it So that's why we're asking for a variance to save costs on that. I mean, it is movable. I could get it within compliance. It would just obviously be cheaper if I didn't have to. Who lives in the camper? My wife's parents, my in-laws.

So you've got three-quarters of an acre, you've got a house, and you've got a camper, and somebody's dwelling in it.

Oh, no, not the camper. No one's living in the camper. I thought you meant the accessory dwelling unit. Somebody's living in the accessory building.

Yes. Okay. I gotcha.

Are you working on cars? Yes. It's a hobby. I buy old junk cars and I fix them up and I sell them or what have you. When they came out and told me it could only have two non-running vehicles on the property, I was surprised because that's not something I'd heard before. And I am in the process of getting that stuff all cleaned up. I have, I think right now, three non-running vehicles on the property. Everything else runs, drives, moves under its own power and is... Are they registered? Yes. I have, I think, the three that don't run and drive under their own power are not. But everything else is registered current up to date. So... that I'm going to get rid of one of the other ones this weekend. I just haven't had the time to get everything squared away.

Is this hooked up to sewer?

It has its own external, like, septic tank, above-ground septic tank that is pumped out once a month. So it's like an RV style. But you don't have a septic for it? No.

And that would be a requirement for auxiliary dwelling unit would be proper.

It would have to be tied to your existing septic on site.

Okay. If it's adequate.

If it's permitted as a, yeah, if it's adequate and if it's permitted as a secondary dwelling unit, it'll have to be tied to a permanent septic system.

That gives both sides or something to have some kind of approved system. Okay. And violations are still not cleaned up, so I think you need to start ground zero and get everything in order.

OK. Yeah, you're. I don't know what the board will do, but if you're going to get in compliance, you've got quite a bit of work to do. I understand other questions for the African. Yes, Sir.

We've got some pictures here. I'm not sure when they were taken, but. You've got a couple of vehicles here that are way beyond just needing a little bit of repair. It looks like maybe it's an El Camino or Ranchero. El Camino. Here? Yep. I mean, that's junk.

That's way beyond something that... I believe that's a matter of opinion, and that car...

I understand. What I'm saying is it's not like it's something you're going to work on. No, it is.

And... It is. It needs a lot of work, I would say. Yes, it needs a lot of work, yes. But it's not... It's not... be unsavable like that's that's my hobby that's my passion that's what i do so so that would be one of the vehicles you would be allowed to have on the property right that would be one of my two that one specifically that one is one that i'm keeping well the rule with two unserviceables been around ever since since i've been here and that's been okay unfortunately quite a long time um i i had just not heard it i didn't know um any other questions for the applicant

I just want to make it stated for the record that you said three years ago when you did this right here, you did not get a permit.

Correct. I didn't know that I needed one.

And I know you need to come get a building permit.

No, I didn't. I just plain ignorance. I had no idea. The company that I bought the shed from told me I didn't need a permit. And they're not. They're not.

from here so i guess i didn't do my due diligence i don't want to be a smart aleck but by the time you get through with this process i thought you're going to be pretty familiar with it yeah yeah

I've learned a lot in the last two months about permits and zoning. Sometimes education is pretty rough, isn't it? Yeah. I always seem to learn things the hard way.

I feel your pain. All right. Any further questions from the board? And if not, does anyone else wish to address 4431 Good out on Holloway Road? Anybody else? If you do, stand up and come on. If you would give her the podium, please. This is my mother-in-law who lives in that structure.

I'm sorry. You knew I was going to say something. So part of our... Give your name and address. Oh, I'm sorry. Lori Andrus, 200 Holloway Road, Lebanon. Part of our ignorance, I guess, would be that it is... It's not a permanent structure, so it's literally sitting on cinder blocks. And because it was not like permanent foundation kind of thing, one, we didn't realize that we needed a building permit. Because in my mind, I'm not building anything there. It's already built and we're just setting it on blocks. And I guess that was basically the main thing was that because it's just like a, a movable home, it literally folds up and turns into a box.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be a legal secondary dwelling unit, would it not need to be on a permanent foundation?

It would be required to be placed on a permanent foundation.

That's another thing. To be legal, it would have to be on a permanent foundation in the future.

A septic, whatever septic you've got out there on your three-quarter acres would have to be large enough to accept this additional septic load. And that's something that you'll have to get taken care of. You'll have to move or get this variance for the setback requirement. And it has been the rule since about 2001 that all structures must be on a permanent foundation.

Right. And we had we had discussions with the applicant on site. That would be part of getting the permit and clean it up. It would have to be put on a permanent foundation. We walked around the structure. I did not see any like traditional like what I would see was like an RV hookup septic. So I don't know where the tank is on this, but that's something we saw on site. But

It's actually a very large tank. We rent it monthly from Van Gogh, and it's designed to hook up.

It's got to be on the permit sewer. Yeah, okay. It doesn't allow pump and haul type things in these conditions.

Okay. The AFT fee, I just don't see a way of possibly waiving that fee, so you need to take that into consideration also.

Even if that and is that because we didn't have the permit prior or because it was our understanding that that happened like it has to be paid.

I mean, if you're gonna get a permit, you gotta pay the FT.

But if we if we purchased it before that rule changed.

If you had got the permit before the rule change, you would be OK, but you did not get the permit before the road.

My correctness you are the there's no grandfather for what you haven't done yet. So you know, had you had the permit and somebody made you and somebody so they didn't pay, they gotta pay. Well, OK, then you might be liable for $2000 because that's what it was way back when, right? But you're here today having not ever. Made application for a permit, so today's rules would apply OK.

Okay.

Any other comments from the board or questions? And I already asked, I think. Does anybody else wish to address 4431? And I'll close the public hearing. Thank you all. And turn to the board for a motion.

I'll make a motion to deny based on staff recommendations.

I have a motion to deny 4431 based on staff recommendations. Does he have a second? I'll second. And now any further discussion on 4431? If not all in favor of the motion vote I opposition vote no. And the eyes have OK. Our next case is case 4432. Um is Maria. Celaya on behalf of Martin Aguilar. Short term rental renewal. The board approved the short-term rental on October 16th, 2025 for one year. Property location is 8469 Saundersville Road, lot 2, Howell property. Tax map 32, parcel 38.01. Zoning is R1 residential. Size of the property is 5.2 acres. We'll get staff recommendations now on 44-32. Mr.

Chair, the applicant is requesting a short-term rental renewal. Approval will receive for one year, October 16, 2025. Approval is subject to the following conditions. The maximum number of occupants would be limited to eight. The business plan submitted in your packet was part of the approval. And the use and amenities of the property have not changed since 2025, nor have there been any public complaints about the property to staff's knowledge. There's no language in the zoning ordinance granting staff permission to renew a short-term rental. However, the board may consider this request. In renewal cases without documented incident, the board will typically grant an extended renewal period. The property still meets all requirements required for an Airbnb.

okay who should represent 4432 yeah good morning my name is Maria Zelaya and I'm today I'm speaking on behalf of mr. Aguilar and he would like to renew the short-term rental permit for the next I don't know year how long I don't know like this is you had a year now right That was the last yes, yes, and I do understand that years.

Yeah, that will to just for the staff's knowledge. This is not the second request for an Airbnb for the structure believe this property has changed hands and never we do that we start the vesting over so it has history of being an Airbnb. It's just their second attempt at it.

I'm confused now this is tell us that again.

the property changed hands at one time and whenever that happens we require the new owners we don't the airbnbs since their temporary uses don't stick with the land they're tied to the owner so when this these applicants bought it they came in and we restarted the airbnb period okay so as far as the current owner goes is this their first this is their second this second time so yes from one to three yes sir okay we're good all right i think we all understand that

Anything you'd like to tell the board, just other than you'd like your renewal?

Oh, well, just keeping the same activity and keep maybe it's possible to have it for three years. Like I remember that somebody told me last year, if I came on time before the two time, I can get the three years. So I'm trying to do that.

Well, being on time is a good thing.

Okay, perfect. I think that you told me that.

I think I may have. But folks that come up here and they've already expired is a problem. Okay. If their time frame has expired, it's a problem.

Yes.

Now, has there been any complaints?

I don't think so. No.

Has there been any complaints?

I do not have any. We check with local law enforcement for complaints as far as other neighborhood complaints directly to the applicant. I don't have a log of those. Okay.

Board have questions for the applicant? All right. No questions. Then is there anyone else who wishes to address 4432? I think this actually goes under the name of Aguilar. If there's no other folks that wish to speak, we'll close public hearing on this case and turn to the board. And they're requesting a three-year renewal, and I'm sure that would be with the same stipulations that we approved the original.

Yes, sir.

This would be a three-year extension of the original approval.

Yep, and that would get them through October. If you do it from today or their original approval, you need to delineate that, but it would be September or October of 29.

Okay, so for the record, I think they're requesting a three-way extension. That would be from today. Okay. It's easy to keep up with. Yes, sir. That would be the September of 29. Yes, sir. All right. Do I hear a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve based on

information were given and no complaints and would be for three years okay three years from today okay just have a second second have a motion in a second and just we've already stated this but just to be clear that all of the original criteria remains in effect okay and is there any discussion if not all in favor vote aye opposition vote no and the eyes have it okay thank you very much thank you OK, our next case is case 4433. Bobby Joe Caldwell. Short term rental renewal. The board approved the short term rental on September the 18th, 2025 for one year. Property is located at 1325 Tate Lane, tax map 73, parcel 21.03. Zoning is R1 residential. Property size is 5.44 acres with staff recommendations now on 4433.

Papkin is requesting a short-term rental renewal. Approvals were originally received for one year on September 18th of 2025. Approval was subject to the following conditions. The maximum number of occupants is two, and that is due to this being an Airbnb. They're renting just a bedroom, not the entire home. No events would be held on the property. A revised business plan to be submitted to the zoning office. The use and amenities of the property have been updated to reflect the previous conditions of approval per the submitted business plan. There have not been any public complaints since this original approval to staff's knowledge. There's no language in the zoning ordinance granting staff permission to renew short-term rentals. However, the board may consider this request. and renewal cases without documented incidents the board will typically grant an extended renewal period the property originally came in on a complaint the applicant has cleared all those violations and that's why the request is just for a bedroom and tell us what the complaints were the original complaint back in 2025 was uh using it as an event center um for the property the applicant has ceased all events on the property and they're solely just renting the bedroom was that prior to our approval of the one uh they had to remove uh they went on the on testimony that they were no longer going to host events on the property and since your approval we've not had any complaints of events being hosted on the property

All right, good. And name and address, please.

I'll be Jo Caldwell, 1325 Tate Lane.

And what would you like to tell the board?

Just ask that you all renew my request to run my little Airbnb.

You had it for a year. You haven't had any complaints since we visited with you last. And what you stated you would do with the property as far as scaling things back, you did.

Correct. Unbehaving.

and now you're here wanting uh three years right three years okay all right questions from the board and and i'm assuming you or and or a family lives here yes we live there okay yes sir just a statement um you need to come in i mean you're one day away from going over the year tomorrow's 18th i would say like in if we grant this in three years I would I would put in a request a little earlier to make sure you don't go over. If you go over, it's going to be a problem.

OK, all right, yes Sir, thank you that.

Any other questions or or statements to the happening? If not, is anyone else here wish to address 4433 Caldwell? OK, if not, I'll close public hearing on 4433 and turn to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I will move to approve with the same business plan, same rules and stipulations that we've had in the previous year for three years.

I have a motion to renew based on same stipulation and business plans for a time frame of three years from today. Does he have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And if not all in favor vote I opposition vote no and the eyes have it. Thank you. Next case is case 4434 K&A land surveying on behalf of Whitney Varden and Steve Pitzer. variances for 34 feet from the requirement of a continuous strip of 50 feet in order to divide property. The smallest width of the continuous strip is 16 feet. Property is located at 9941 Sparta Pike, Joshua Keller property, tax map 128, parcel 17, currently zoned A1, containing 44.42 acres. We get staff recommendations on 4434.

Mr. Chair, the applicant is requesting a variance of 34 feet from the requirement of the continuance strip of 50 feet to subdivide property. The 16-foot-wide strip of land is platted and will not be created through the subdivision process. However, it is not currently being utilized as road frontage. Given the language in the zoning art, staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request. I know this is unique to your all's request so I'm going to try to get in front of a few questions you may have. There's no issue with the applicant subdividing the property as shown in your boundary exhibit that they have. documentation that we have in the zoning ordinance that we enforce is that you have to have a 50-foot continuous strip from the public road right away back to your building envelope for your primary resident. The applicant is simply requesting to be able to build past that bottleneck. So there's no issue with the way the property is being subdivided. It's where they want to put the home with the primary building envelope. There's no issue with putting accessory structures back there where a bottleneck is. It's just the language that we have. The primary structure has to be directly accessible from the 50-foot public right-of-way road frontage.

So this is not creating an additional lot?

They're asking to create an additional lot. and it has 50 foot of public road frontage but we would not deem it as a buildable lot for a primary structure they'd be allowed a 2 000 square foot accessory structure based off the size of it but it's not an illegal lot of record it's just not going to be a buildable lot it is not an older lot of record no they're looking to create it brand new it's not currently created oh wait a minute

If this is approved, if it were to be approved, this would be a legal lot.

This would be a legal lot if you approved it.

And you could build a house on it.

If you all approve it, yes, sir. The reason is before you.

One lot. And they want to make two lots.

Correct.

One looks pretty standard. And the other one, the secondary lot, is the one that's got the 16-foot narrow corridor.

Yes, sir. So it meets all acreage and road frontage requirements, just not the 50-foot continuance.

The 50-foot continual requirement.

Correct.

So I'll make sure I had all...

I was trying to clear that up. It's unique, and I know you've all not probably seen this before.

Okay. All right. Who's here to represent 4434 K&A?

Brian Keith, K&A Survey in 427 Park Avenue. This is a unique piece of property in that There's a large portion in the front and a large portion in the back, which equals 44 acres. This property was subdivided by an old lane, and that's what the 16-foot actually is, is an old lane that went through this property. And so when it was originally subdivided, they just used the fences on both sides of that lane to divide it out. What year was that?

I don't know. You're talking about when this whole thing was created?

when the 44 acres was split out. Yeah, I can get you the date, but I don't have it handy.

But originally it was 44 acres and it was all one piece.

Yes, and it still is. What we're asking to do is to use the back portion of this track as a separate track, a buildable track, so that additional house can be built on this 44 acres. We are bringing 50 foot from the road We're bringing 50 foot from the road up the westerly property line until we get to that 16 foot wide lane, which that is the narrowest point. It does get wider than that in some places, but it's still below the 50 foot threshold. Once we get to that 16 foot, we need a variance just for that 600 feet is all we're asking for, a 600 foot variance of the 50 foot requirement. Other than that, it meets all requirements for additional track of land.

What would you call that that line there or whatever where it narrows down? Would that have ever been an easement or is there any kind of easement anywhere at all? Is it just a, to your knowledge, just a private drive?

Probably at some time, Mr. Neal, it was probably some type of access road, but there's no record of it. Okay.

Well. I keep hearing this if we if we just get this, it'll be a buildable track. But it's 44 acres now and it's in and it's just a subdivision that doesn't comply that needs a variance in order to comply. Yes.

I'm just trying to explain what we're going to do with it. It's it's it's not. It's it's not overly complicated. We're going to take one track and make two tracks. We just don't meet the 50-foot continuous requirement. For the most part, we have it, but 600 foot, shy of having enough.

Somebody else owns west of that? Yes.

We do not have the ability at this time to make that wider. If we could, that would have been the answer to the problem.

Well, people come in here from time to time with lots that just, you know, they're pretty new lots, like this would be a brand new one, that just don't comply. And they just, it's not really that they have a basis for the variance. It's just, you know, they want the variance or they need the variance to do what they're wanting to do. That is this case. It is this case. They need the variance to do what they want to do, which is a subdivision of property.

Yes, that's correct.

Other questions for the applicant? A quick question for staff. And I may be going down a road that I shouldn't, but hypothetically, there was no house anywhere on this property, and he wanted to build a house on that back, as is. Could he or could he not build it? He could not?

You're talking like if you leave it to 44?

He had 44 acres there, no house, and he wanted to build on the back end of that property.

He would be asking for the same variance because there's nothing that prohibits him from building a house on the 44 acres. There's currently one there. He's asking to have a buildable envelope behind a bottleneck.

But he's creating a new lot. I'm just saying hypothetically, if he was not creating a new lot, he wanted to put a house on the back, he would still be in front of this board asking for this exact same thing.

Yes, sir.

I know he's not doing that. I'm just saying.

Yes, because the language that we have is that where the buildable envelope is, and that's the only thing the buildable envelope incorporates is the primary structure on the property. It has to be 50-foot continuous all the way back to the primary structure.

The point being him creating a new lot is not what's creating the 16-foot strip there. No, I mean— He's wanting to build on that back there that's—yeah.

Yes, and that is correct. The way he has this boundary survey that's in your packet, he could record this today. It's just we're not going to issue a building permit on it for a primary residence. He could go out and build a 2,000-square-foot shop out there within the confines of the zoning.

He could access it and farm it?

Absolutely, yes. It's just he's asking for permission to be able to interpret it as a legal buildable tract for a primary structure.

That would be newly created?

It would be newly created, yes, sir. But it'd be the same issue as if he tore the existing home down and wanted to put the primary residence on there in the back.

When the original 44 acres was created.

I do not have that. No, sir.

Karen might have that in her due diligence. There's a big difference between, okay, I've got 44 acres and I've got a bottleneck and I want to get behind the bottleneck and build a house on my 44 acres as opposed to I want to create a new lot and have two lots out of one. I mean, isn't that a considerable difference?

It would be. I mean, he could still get two lots on this. He could still get two homes on this property and be in complete compliance with all the zoning ordinance. The uniqueness of this request is that he wants a home behind the bottleneck. There's enough acreage in the front portion of this 44 acres to still get two homes on the property, so you're not necessarily granting any additional homes beyond what would be required. You're just granting the fact that he can have one behind a bottleneck, which our zoning ordinance does not currently allow.

It just seems that there's a big difference between we've got a hardship with this bottleneck and we want to put a home behind it. We've got 44 acres. As opposed to we want a variant so we can have a new lot and have two lots instead of one. It seems quite a different scenario to me.

Maybe. But I mean, you're not granting a variance for him to be able to create a new lot. He can do that Right now with the bottleneck. There's nothing that says lots.

Right, because it's over five acres.

Correct. It's just he's asking, this particular request is they want to designate the back half of this property as a buildable tract for a primary residence. If he cut it off in a different fashion and had a buildable tract in front of that.

I don't know what they might do with it. I have no idea. Correct. You move from having one marketable lot to having two. Yes, sir, you would, yes. Not really our business, but... Okay. Does the board have any other questions for the applicant?

Just a comment. You know, and I understand where this comes from, what the issue is. I don't have a problem with that. We open ourself up, I come up here, and I have a lot here I want to take off, and I don't have 20 feet down on the road to start with. I want to talk to every real estate agent coming up here and start to divide land up with 20 feet of road frontage or 16 feet of road frontage. Now, this is, I think, land alone, but just food for thought is what I'm saying.

Are we setting something here that we've had a lot of? I said we had several cases over the years where people had lots that didn't meet the frontage requirement and some of it they were old then lane business that goes on all the time. Well, I get there by the Lane Lane stopping 20, but the older the older lots you know we have some flexibility on in the newer ones. You know, not so much.

Anyone else have questions? Just a comment. Does the? Does it have any bearing, the size? I mean, you know, we're talking about a 29 acre lot. Staff said he's gonna legally be able to make a lot. You know, is there some kind of land use rights where if I've got a 29-acre lot, do I have a right to put a house on it? I know he's got to have a variance to do that. I'm just saying, does that play into this in any way?

If the lot was pre-existing, absolutely, we would grant one building permit and staff would recommend approval of the request if there was proof that the... That the bottleneck was pre-existing. This is the request to have it behind there with a new survey that's going to be recorded. So you're creating that issue at that point. Or if there was history that there was a home back there historically, but there's no record that staff could find that shows that there's ever been a house on the backside of that property.

Okay. Let me ask, does anyone else wish to address 4434, K&A Land Surveying, Varden, and Pitzer?

Mr. Chairman, that property was created in 1918.

So the 44 acres was in 1918? Yes, sir.

And I'd like to also say that, you know, we're not prohibited. If the existing house wasn't there, they're not prohibited to build back there. they could get a building permit because it's an existing lot.

Exactly, because it's an old lottery. So we're really not... Grandfather status. Based on grandfather status. Yeah, you could go... I agree. But they have built one there.

But I don't think this is the same thing as not having enough road frontage at the road. I mean, I just want to make that point. I don't think it's the same issue as coming up with 45 feet and saying...

Well, the lot created in 1918 would be due a building permit.

Right.

That's been done. They've got that.

Yes. But I just think it's reasonable. Yeah, I just think it's reasonable for them to be able to use that back portion of that property to build a house on. I think it makes sense to do that. But that's just my opinion, and you're the board.

All right. Anyone else wish to address 4434? Yeah. Y'all come on up, please.

I know. Name and address. Yes, sir. That's the way it works. 1045 Holmes Yacht Road in Watertown. Mm-hmm. I own the property that joins that. I know where the bottleneck is. Now, a month and a month and a half ago, Steve... petzer whatever his name is come to my house won't know if i wanted to sell road frontage and he pulled it up on his cell phone and it's down there on highway 70 i said what do you want to buy that for he said i need 50 foot road frontage on my part is only like 69 almost 70 feet i told him i said it's not for sale then i get the letter about the zoning Now, I just listened to y'all's conversation. 50 foot from the road, is that Highway 70? In this instance, it would be Highway 70, yes. Yes, yeah. All right, is that road frontage on Highway 70 going to come off of him? Yes, yes, yeah. All right, where's he going to get the other 50 foot for the lane back here?

Because he ain't getting it off of me. He's, according to my map here, he's got adequate road frontage for two lots. I mean, he's got plenty of road frontage. He's got several hundred feet. I can't read that. Yeah, it's too fine. But it looks like he's shaving it off of the edge of his existing lot. Between you and him, he's taking 50 foot on him right next to your property and going back to the back. On the map there.

What got me, though, was when he asked me, I didn't know who he was when he showed up at my house. When you get these people that pull up in these nice, shiny new vehicles and the wonder's all tinted, I was out back. The first thing you think of is a salesman or, I shouldn't say it, but your hopeful witness. So I just walked around the corner of the house, and he's up there ramping on the door. I asked him, I said, can I help you? He introduced himself, pulled out his cell phone, wanted to sell this piece of property. I said, where's it at? He said, down there beside the substation. I said, no. He said, well, you don't have to be so hard. I said, hell, you ain't seen hard yet, Bubba. So if he wants 50 foot off of me, he ain't getting it.

That's between you and him. What he's asking for is a variance on the zoning ordinance back here some several hundred feet off the road that's on him. Another thing, if he's going to build a house back there, where's he going to get electricity from? That is not our issue, sir. About water. That's not our issue. They're only looking at the rule in the zoning ordinance and that rule and how he wants relief from it. We're not here to talk about the water or the electricity or anything. That's not what we're here for.

Well, I just tell you, he ain't getting nothing off me. I appreciate it. Yes, sir.

Go right ahead. Looking at that map on the wall in the back, or we could look up here too, where the blue area is, do you live to the right or left of that? He's the woods. The big water that beats OK, that would be to the left. I'm down on Holmes Gap Rd. OK, that farm is is. Okay, you own the land to the left is what we're getting to then. I got it. Yes, the trailer. Okay.

Yeah, his tractor actually crosses over the railroad tracks and accesses off of Holmes Gap.

All right.

All right.

Good. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Yes, ma'am.

Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Lee Cowan. I'm an adjoining property owner at 550 Hudson Road. And I would say that before the Kellers purchased this property, a man named Odom came to me and wanted to come down my driveway in order to access. I guess he wanted an easement. And I said no. I told him there wasn't enough money. They didn't have the money. I'd never want to see somebody coming down my driveway. So that's the historical that I know. But the other thing that I speak in opposition of this because I don't think that a 16-foot strip would be, it's a safety concern for me because if they did build back their emergency vehicles accessing it, would not, that's just not enough. So I guess I just speak in opposition.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anyone else? and if not we'll close public hearing on 44 34 and turn to the board for a motion i'll make a motion to approve based on the grandfather status i have a motion to approve based on grandfather's status does he have a second

I can second that, but we might open it up for discussion. All right, go ahead. Well, I mean, he said based on grandfather status, I don't know that the new lot is grandfathered in, so we might ought to discuss this somewhat. The old lot was grandfathered in, but the new lot will not. It does not. Am I correct? You're correct.

So the old lot is grandfathered, but the new lot does not have grandfather status, but creating a new lot would not.

So, Neil, did you officially second? Well, I mean, I thought I had to second it to discuss it. We'll take that statement out.

Yeah, there's actually no grandfathering because there's no existing structures. Like, the lot is old, yes, but there's no physical structure or variance that has grandfathering on this property because there's no home back there.

There's a home on the 44 acres, isn't there?

But it's in the front. There's no need for any sort of.

But the 44 acre lot has burned. It's already used up. It's one permit status because of its grandfather, because a home has been built there on the 1918 track.

Correct. I just wouldn't term it as grandfathering. Now, you would say it's burned up, it's one home for grandfathering if he wanted two homes back behind the bottleneck and there was one existing.

You have a substandard, you have an old lot of record, 44 acres created 100 years ago. Okay, it is due at least one... permeate based on the fact that it shouldn't have to meet requirements you know because of its age correct do anything more than that then you're going to have to comply with the current zoning order yes um the grandfather would come in as if there was something that was built

not in compliance that you would justify grandfathering of an existing structure the structures that are on there are completely compliant you don't need to bring in the fact that they're grandfathered in because they're compliant to all of our regulations we have today so it's really it is but it's not Right. Now, if there was no home on the property or if they tore the existing home down, you could justify that the lot is a grandfathered lot and justify that they could put a home on the back portion of that 44 acres.

And I speak to Mr. Crockett's motion was to approve it based on his grandfather's.

I don't. I mean, you can recommend approval. I don't think grandfather needs to be brought into that compliance.

That was my point. I didn't think that would you change to that based on it does have 50 feet on that makes the road.

Okay, so we have a motion, and that motion is to grant the application based on the fact that they do have at least 50 foot at the road. Exactly. All right, now, Mr. Neal, you want to second that or not? I'll go ahead and second that, yes. Okay, now, discussion. If it's not, all in favor of that motion, vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. I vote no. No. And Sonja votes no, so the ayes have it. And that is approved. OK, our next case is case 4435. Angie Basford variance of 4 feet from the north side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. for the existing house that is 11 feet from the north side property line and a variance of 8 feet from the north side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for the existing shed that is 2 feet from the north side yard property line. The variances are needed in order to receive a zoning compliance certificate to build a covered porch that will meet all setback requirements. The property is located at 2425 Nonneville Road, Lot 256, Royal Oaks, Tax Map 31M, Group G, Parcel 12. Zoning is R1 residential and the property size is 11,000 square feet. We'll get staff recommendations now on 4435.

Mr the applicant is requesting a variance of 4 feet from the North side yard setback requirement for the existing home and a variance of 8 feet from the North side yard. Side yard setback requirement for accessory existing shed staff were was unable to find a permit for the existing shed and. uh mentioned this is not an old attractive record with a lot being created in december of 1986 therefore given the language and the zoning ordinance staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request staff will note that the amended plat has been submitted to the city of mount juliet's planning office the applicant is wanting to add a covered patio onto the rear of the home that will meet all required setbacks the plat that has been submitted to the city of mount juliet is removing the you the drainage easement from the side of the property to bring the accessory structure into compliance.

It could so correction on just to say

All right. Are you done, Chris? Yes, sir. Okay. Now give us your name and address, please.

Sorry. Angie Bassford, address 2425 Nonneville Road. So correction on the plat amendment that we're doing. The plat amendment is actually to remove on the original plat there is an error of a 40-foot... Build envelope like restrictions. So from the front of the property line we have 30 feet to the the start of our home and then we're stuck within 40 feet. So that is the plot. Amendment is actually to a. to correct that error that happened back in 80-whatever. And so our drainage, the sewer, that we are actually in compliance. The accessory structure that we have on that side, that shed is completely in compliance with all of the zoning rules. They came out measured and even that day told me that it's within Those limits are the those rules that have been set for zoning. So the variance request is actually on a secondary shed that we have that it's not pictured in this. It's actually that building that tan building in the back. It's actually moved over on. But I guess that might be the West side, no North side of our property line again near that fence. It sits 2 feet off of our fence, 2 feet off of the property line. When we made that move, we did check with we asked our neighbor if they had any issue with us moving. It did not have any issue with us moving it. It's a carport that we've just put sides on is what that that structure is itself. And then the second variance is actually for the house itself. The house itself there on the north side on our driveway sits 11 feet from the property line. So that's four feet out of a setback compliance of 15 feet. And that happened when the house was built back in 1986. Okay.

Questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I think I'm thoroughly confused, but so. I understand you're needing a variance on the house, so I'm going to skip over that for just a second. So you're needing a variance on accessory dwell, not dwelling, but structure. Now is that shed number two that's worked on here?

Yes, the shed number two.

And wait a minute. Is shed number two get a permit and when was it built?

It did not get a permit. It was originally a carport that sat in our driveway and we just put sides on it.

OK, go ahead Perry. That I thought that kind of covered it. I was gonna. OK. And when was it put? When was it put there?

We moved it to that location. I'm going to estimate three years ago.

I'm good. All right, other questions for the applicant?

And to our knowledge, we have not had any complaints from neighbors on it at all.

So the shed needs a variance shed number two, correct? What about shed number one?

That one does not because it is set back greater than 10 feet from the side and also from the sewer and set back greater than 10 feet from the rear.

So we're just dealing with the shed and the house.

Correct. Shed number two and then the house.

And the house is 35, nearly 40 years old and the shed is recent.

Correct.

And the variance for the house was very somewhat minimum. It's a 4 foot variance for the sheds quite excessive.

OK, it is an I would like to state that it is within community standard. There are several other homes in the region that actually have the same similar setup.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I got go in shed number two. Is that a concrete slab?

No, it is gravel.

So it could be moved.

It could not easily, but it could be moved to move it. The full 10 feet off would greatly affect our backyard for the kids and the dogs.

Well, yeah, you couldn't really move it 10 feet and then you would be too close to the house. It looks like.

Correct.

Other questions? And before we get any further, is anyone else here used to need to address would like to address 4435? Passford. OK. If not, and if the board has no more questions for the applicant, will close public comment and turn to the board for motion.

Mr Chairman, I will make a. Motion that we grant the variance for the house, but we deny the variance for the shed.

I'll second that any discussion. If not all in favor vote I I opposition vote no. And the ice had thank you. OK, our next case is 4436. Complete exterior. On behalf of Sid Williams. variance of eight feet from the east side yard setback requirement of 10 feet, variance of five feet from the rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet, variance of seven feet between structures for an accessory structure that is two feet from the east side yard property line, five feet from the rear property line, and one foot between structures. The variances are all needed in order to receive a zoning compliance certificate for a covered porch that will meet the setbacks. Property is located at 806 Fredericksburg Road, Lot 15, Shenandoah. Tax map 99H. Parcel is Group A4. Zoning is R1 Residential. Property contains .89 acres. We'll get staff recommendations now on 4436.

Sure, the applicant is requesting a variance of eight feet from the east side yard setback requirement a variance of five feet from the rear yard setback requirement a variance of seven feet between structures for an existing accessory structure staff did find a permit that was issued in 1996 for the accessory structure to the East on this property the larger one and the other structure staff could not find does not appear to be permitted this is an old attractive record with a lot being created in may of 1972 therefore given the language in the zoning order staff can recommend approval of the variances requested due to it being an older lot of record staff will note that the applicant has stated that they're willing to submit a plat amendment to the planning office to remove the utility easement from the rear yard this plot has not been submitted to date But that would help clean up some of the issues as well.

Okay, who's here to represent 4436?

Mark Holt, Complete Exterior Inc. And what would you like to tell the board? Mr. Williams has been there since 1983. He's wanting to put a covered porch on the back of his back porch. Not much else to it, just trying to get the blessings from you guys to get these variances to make this happen.

Okay. Does the board have questions?

It says here that you would submit a plan amendment to the planning office, and that hasn't been done yet?

They're working on it right now. That will be submitted? Yes, ma'am.

So our approval might be subject to that submittal and approval?

If that's what you require, then I respect that.

Okay. Other questions for the applicant? Did anyone else wish to address 4436? Yeah, please. Yes, sir. Step up here. Give him the podium, please. Yes, sir.

The survey company has been hired. I was under the understanding we didn't have... Just a moment.

Name and address, please.

Sid Williams, 806 Fredericksburg Road, Montreal. We've hired the survey people to do that. We were under the understanding we didn't have to have that for today. We were on their schedule for that to happen. All that's been done. I've met with all the engineers at the utility places that got it.

I don't know that it was a requirement that anybody put on you to have it today, but it may be part of a motion if we make one for that to get done.

I see OK. Would we be able to pull the permit if if y'all approve this not until that's completed?

It depends on what the motion is that we haven't made a motion yet. OK, alright, thank you. Anyone else? And if not, I'll close public hearing on 4436 and turn to the board for emotion or further discussion. Justice discussions.

I know we got a positive recommendation based on the fact it's an older lot of record.

at what point does an older lot of record get more accessory dwellings on i mean what point do you say well that enough is enough on an older lot of record well i mean they're building this one foot away from the primary residence there's an instance later today that i mean that you'll have a different recommendation for that particular a lot of record but um the one structure was permitted the other one just based on a field review looks older than that so Like if it was a permit for... And I base it on the age of the... I do. If it was... A lot of... If the applicant and this applicant is pulling a permit for a covered patio, which is going to be completely in compliance. Right. If he was pulling a structure, a permit for a new accessory structure that was three feet off the property line, that would get a very different review.

That answered it very well. Thank you. It was mentioned that the applicant's in process of a revised plat, making the revised plat approval subject to...

It does not affect the existing home permit that he's applying for. It just removes the existing accessory structures at the rear of the property out of the utility easements, which we typically, like if he were to apply today, we would not permit structures within a utility easement.

And that would remove that utility easement, correct?

Correct.

That is what they... My question is, though, in the end, do you have to approve that plat or is it just a submittal item?

I would like to say that I approve it. That is in Mount Juliet's Urban Growth Boundary. So they're going to be the ones that review and sign that particular plat. But we do work with them on getting that approved.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the applicant to submit that plat. I don't want to put him in a situation where he gets tangled up in the bureaucracy for the next.

I mean, you could require the plat to be submitted, not necessarily recorded. That way we have documentation that he started that process.

Got you. Okay. Yes, sir.

I'll make a motion that we grant this based on the staff recommendation and that the plat amendment be forwarded to the proper office.

Got you. Okay. Forward is just as good as submitted, so we'll take that. Second? Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion? Not all in favor vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. And the ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you.

And just for the applicant's sake, the best way to do that is when you submit that to the city of Mount Juliet for review, you want to bring a copy of that receipt that you've submitted your application to the zoning office so we can confirm it. Sure. Thank you.

Okay, we've been going for an hour and a half. We're halfway through the agenda, roughly, so I will call a 10-minute recess, and we will come back at the end of the recess and take up at 4437 Danny Hiker. We'll call the meeting back to order.

Our next case is case 4437.

Danny Hiker variance request of 4 feet from the east side yard setback requirement of 20 feet for the existing house that is 16 feet from the east side yard property line. The variance is needed for the applicant to receive a zoning compliance certificate for an accessory structure that will meet all required setbacks. The property's location is 401 Holloway Road, Lot 13. Parcel 103, excuse me, map is 103, parcel is 1.04. Zoning is A1 Agricultural. Size of the property is 13.07 acres. We get staff recommendations now on 4437.

The applicant is requesting a variance of four feet from the east side yard setback requirement for the existing home. The home was permitted in late 2017 and early 2018, and the plot plan submitted say the home was 70 feet from said property line. This is not an old attractive record with the lot being created in December of 2017. Therefore, given the language in the zoning ordinance, staff cannot recommend approval of this variance request.

Okay, who's here to represent 4437?

Danny Hiker at 401 Holloway Road.

And what would you like to tell the board, sir?

I don't know where they got the 70 feet at on the deal. My wife picked the permit up when we built the building, and I think that she wrote down 10 feet. We thought it was 10 feet off the property line, but I guess it's 16 feet. And my neighbor has no problem with me building. What I'm wanting to do is we've been living in the structure that y'all are talking about since 17. So somebody signed off on it. we moved in there for a final i'm just trying to build a detached garage behind it which is well off the property line and when i come to get a permit they said my existing structure is too close but if that's the case i don't know why they signed off on it

somebody say something okay all right um does the board have questions for the applicant can anybody answer his question uh why i got signed off on i i cannot no sir i wasn't part of that department anywhere near that time frame so the issue is not this s3 building is wanting to build it's the existing home existing house and this this parcel Uh, Miss, why do you think was done yesterday? It was nearly 10 years old, correct? Yes, the subdivision was done prior to the home being built.

Yes, yep.

And you obviously you got a building permit for the home.

Yes, there's a permit for the home. The tract was created in December of 17.

And I know you said this, but just to reiterate, let me see. The home was permitted in late 2017, 2018, stating the home was 70 feet from the property line.

yes i don't know where the that's based off the plot plan we have on file with the building if you look at the uh if you look at the writing it's not 70 feet it's 10 feet are you saying that the plot plan is wrong or yeah uh written wrong or whoever signed off on it who wrote it who wrote the plot plan up I don't know, I don't have any.

Your lot in 17? Was it your lot? Yes. You had the structure built?

Yes.

So you had to do the plot plan or somebody?

Well, I think my wife come in and actually pulled a permit. But I was telling her that the people at the planning commission said she said it was 70 feet. Well, there's no way it's 70 feet. You can see it's only 12 or 16 feet. She said that's a one. Like she told me it was 10 feet off the line. And obviously you can't do it with this 10 feet off the line. So I don't know. And actually, I don't think nobody knows where the line is because the Planning Commission come over and looked at it. We couldn't figure out where the line was. Me and my neighbor split that 26 acres there, and they brought our electric line up the property line. And if you're going by where his fence is— The electric line is way off, so nobody could really find the exact. They just measured from my neighbor's fence. Fence could be off. I don't know.

When y'all go out to do a field review, don't you require the corners to be staked when you get there?

on an initial request no we do the best of our ability with the lines that we have that a lot of times if it's like a proposed structure the property lines are staked and we utilize those corners that have been placed up by a surveyor but for a request such as such as his with the structures already being there and the structure that he's applying for not needing any sort of variance on a large acre tract we don't require those to be preemptively marked i guess my question how would you know whether it's in violation or not They don't. We don't have 100% certainty, no, sir.

Careful. You may be in worse shape than you think. Well, I'm just saying. I don't know which way they may be off.

Yeah. From what the guy that put the electric line in, if we measure from where the electric thing is, it's 20 feet. But my neighbor's fence is only 16 feet. So I don't know if his fence is right or without a surveyor, you know.

I would think that we ought to act on what's in front of us, or I guess not.

Or it might be beneficial to everybody if he gots to survey right there and put a few stakes in the ground and knew where the property line is. That's true. That's an option for us also. It's just sort of odd to me that we're taking action here and nobody knows where the property line is. The board have any other questions for the applicant? If not, does anyone else here wish to address 4437 Heichler? OK. Will close public comment. Thank you Sir and turn to the board or hear motion.

Just his discussion. I'm OK going with what we got, but if you'd rather. I don't just discussing it.

My only concern is I don't know what I've got. I've got the other paper, but I don't think staff and applicant but don't.

I think the biggest I think the biggest thing that came up with this one is that like staff interpreted that that number was a 70 and when we got out there we can clearly.

It's not 70.

Yeah, we can clearly see that it's not that far off. OK.

All right, in regard to 4437, do I hear a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion that we grant the request on this 4437. That request being for four feet from the east side yard.

Have a motion to grant the request for a four-foot east side yard setback variance. Do whatever y'all want to do with it. Does he have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And all in favor of the motion, vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no, and I'll vote no. And the reason being, I just think we need to know where property lines are before we start granting variances on them. That's all. Evidently not. OK. Our next case is case 4438. Doug, my hand construction. On behalf of Joe Metclair. Variance of 4 feet from the east side yard setback parameter 10 feet for a proposed accessory structure that will be 6 feet from the east side yard line. The property is located at 257 Lakeview Circle, lot 64, Trails End, tax map 11K, parcel group A23. Zoning is R1 residential. Size of the property is .43 acres. We get staff recommendation now on 4438.

Mr. Chair, the applicant is requesting a variance of four feet from the east side yard setback requirement for a proposed accessory structure. This is an old attractive record with the lot being created in October of 1958. Therefore, given the language in the zoning order, staff can recommend approval of this variance request. This neighborhood has historical variances going back to it, and it also is one of the lots that adjoin the lake property, and they have historically had variances of similar request.

Okay, who's here to represent 4438? My hand.

Hi, my name is Chris Meckler. I'm married to Joe Meckler and I'm speaking on behalf of us today. you like to tell the board yes please um so we purchased the property um in last year in september of 2025 um and doug my hand is our builder so he's helped us through this process we intended to remodel the home um because it's a 19 It's an older home and to use the existing three car three car detached garage and then we would move in to make it our permanent residence. So we worked with the builder and the plans to remodel and the house was in a condition that remodeling was. Going to be. Too costly due to deterioration there we found termites and so we decided that we would move forward with plans to build a new home to demolish the current home and build a new home, but continue to utilize the existing garage that sits out back. Well, in proceeding with that, we discovered the garage had been built over the rear property lines, which your.

Um, that's not yeah, it's not survey.

Yeah, so that's not so our surveyor discovered the hot. The house was built over the property line and actually there's a utility easement back there. So, um, in order to proceed, we are required to incur the expense to tear that garage down. So, we decided we were going to relocate the garage to the front yard and build a smaller two-car garage. To make the new garage more accessible due to the slope and grade of the property, we are requesting a four-foot variance from the east side yard setback requirement. We've talked to our surrounding neighbors and most specifically our neighbor at 277, which is the one to the right on the map. Who shares that property line and they're aware of what we're proposing and they support or they support our request.

Thank you. The board have questions for the applicant. And if not, is anyone else here wish to address 4438? Doug, my instruction. Okay. We'll close public comment then. Thank you very much. Turning to the board for a motion.

I'm going to ask that we approve this based on the staff recommendation that it can be recommended.

I have a motion to approve 4438. Does she have a second? Second. I have a motion. Second. Any discussion? And if not, all in favor vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. The ayes have it. Thank you. OK. Our next case is 4439 Catalina Garcia. Request this variance of 5 feet from the West side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for an existing accessory structure. that is five feet from the west side property line. The variance is needed for the applicant to receive a zoning compliance certificate for a patio that will be added to the existing accessory structure and will meet all setback requirements. The property location is 305 Bates Road. It's tax map 13, parcel 20. It's zoned A1 agricultural and has .88 acres. We get staff recommendation now on 4439.

Sure, the applicant is requesting a variance of five feet from the west side yard setback requirement for the existing accessory structure. Staff was unable to find the permit for the accessory structure. This is an older tract of record with a lot being created in 68. Therefore, given the language in the zoning, staff can recommend approval of the variance request. Both structures do appear to be dated. The existing home, while we're out there, is in the process of being remodeled.

Okay. And who's here to represent 4439 Garcia?

Me, Catalina Garcia. My address is 305 Bay Road in Lebanon.

Is there anything additional you'd like to tell the board?

No. I bought a house like that, you know, like two years ago. I don't know if that's an issue that fits to my land property. And I'm planning to build back towards space for more storage in my garage. And when I come in here to the office, they told me I need to fix this.

The age of the lot works in your favor because the age of the lot has recommended approval. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? If not, does anyone else wish to address 4439 Garcia? And that being the case, will close the public hearing. Turn to the board for a motion on 4439.

I'm making motion approved based on staff recommendation.

Have a motion to approve based on staff recommendations. Do you have a second motion? A second discussion on the motion? If none, all in favor vote aye. Opposition vote no. The ayes have it. Thank you. Okay, our next case is case 4440, the barn store on behalf of Richard Parrish. The request is for a seven foot variance from the south side yard setback requirement of 10 feet for an accessory structure that is three feet from the south side property line. The property is located at 817 Lori Lane, Lot 24, Lakeview. Tax map is 50B, parcel is C24. Zoning currently is R1 Residential, and the lot contains 40,319 square feet. We'll get staff recommendations now on 4440.

So the applicant is requesting a variance of seven feet from the South side yard setback requirement for an accessory structure. A permit for this structure was pulled and issued in 2026 this is an older attractive record with a lot being created in March of 1972. With the permit being issued in 2026 all setbacks would have been verified at the time of application, therefore staff cannot recommend approval. Like they would have submitted in 2026, they would have submitted a plot plan similar to the one that you saw on the previous one with the lake lots. They, for some reason, the structure got built in violation of that, and those setbacks should have been verified on the front end prior to the structure being built.

So they're not due a variance because they went ahead and built it?

Without a variance from the existing requirement, yes, sir.

Okay. Who's here to represent 4440? Austin Christian, 660 Coles Ferry Road, Gallatin.

And what's your relationship to this case, just out of curiosity? I own the Bourne store. Okay, gotcha. Go right ahead.

So maybe not necessarily a correction, but an adjustment. The building is not completely finished. We immediately stopped construction when this was brought to our attention. In between determining the location of the building being too close to the property line and this agenda being placed. We went ahead and hired a surveyor to go out and locate the existing property lines. And the determination from the surveyor is that the corner that's in question, which I understand you guys work off of the closest corner, that that What I'm looking at looks to be the front right corner is actually in the closest corner is six feet and that the rear corner is nine feet in terms of the application that was submitted for the permit for zoning compliance. I think that we get to these numbers in a very similar way. We have six salespeople that are outselling these buildings on a daily basis to the tune of around 500 a year. And the way that it typically works is they go out and they use context clues, look at fence lines, look at GIS, look at plot plans if they're available on the property, and try to make the best determination on exactly where that property line is in that determination from our salesperson. They determined that they were 10 feet off the property line, which would have fell within the compliance zoning compliance, which is how the permit was approved in the first place. Obviously, staff came out, did a similar study or. you know, situation to determine the location of the building in relation to the property line, determined that that front corner was three feet off of the property line. Obviously, we hired a surveyor to go out and determine the exact location, and it's six. And he's been, he actually, as soon as he had that finding, contacted my administrative team, let them know that. Unfortunately, he immediately went out of town, South Carolina, and wasn't able to provide us with a stamp plot plan. I did speak with him on the way here, and he did agree, of course, if you guys were to grant an approval on this, that I would be able to provide you with a stamp plot plan showing that that closest corner is at six feet, not three feet.

When y'all start these structures, do you require the owner show you a building permit?

We actually offer an in-house service where we pull the permits for the clients. But you would not start a structure without a permit? I'm not going to say that I haven't done it in the past. Just from, again, with the volume that we do, something slips through the cracks. But to answer your question, our policy is absolutely not. We would not start a building without a building permit. And this one, of course, had the permit pulled before we started the actual construction process.

All right. you thought you were in compliance you had a permit and it turns out you are not that's correct yes sir and you believe the uh actual actual on the ground setback according to your excuse me location according to your surveyor is six foot off the property line at the closest corner yes sir and at the rear corner which is the same side of the building on that same property line is nine feet

So buildings not directly parallel with the property line. It trails away.

So are you changing your request from instead of requesting a seven foot, you're requesting only four foot?

Yes, sir. And of course, if you guys were to approve that, that's where the plot plan would be submitted that showed that from the surveyor.

Okay. Any other questions? and does anyone else wish to address 4440 the barn store we'll close public comment then thank you sir thank you turn to the board for a motion can i ask a question please absolutely when somebody gets up and they change this from seven feet to four feet do we have to have anything like that documenting that or do we just stated or what well we've got the transcript and we got the minutes okay um and in the past when the variance has been uh minor especially if it's a reduction we have allowed such without additional advertisement or ask them to come back okay thank you yes sir he didn't justify that that that information would be forwarded

by somebody in his organization. It will change from 7 to 4.

If there's no further discussion in regard to 4440, I'll make a motion that we approve the variance request for 4 foot variance from the south side yard setback with the provision that the applicant will forward us a plot plan showing such. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second now. Any further discussion? Not. All in favor vote aye. Aye. Opposition vote no. The ayes have it. Thank you. Next case is 4441. Applicant is green LID design on behalf of Samuel Samuel. Request is for a variance of 10 feet. Front yard setback requirement of 40 feet for proposed gas pumps that will be 30 feet from the front property line and a variance of four parking spaces from the requirement of 42 parking spaces to allow the proposed 38 parking spaces. Property location is 4581 Coles Ferry Pike, Lot 2, Ruby Holman Subdivision and Gale King Property. Tax map is 36, parcel is 36. Zoning is C1 Commercial. Size of the property is 1.17 acres. We get staff recommendations now on 4441.

Mr. The applicant is requesting a variance of 10 feet from the front yard setback requirement of 40 feet for proposed gas pumps that will be 30 feet from the front property line and a variance of four parking spaces from the requirement of 42 parking spaces to allow the proposed parking of 38 spaces given. given the language in the zone staff cannot recommend approval of either variance request staff will note that there was a site plan approved for this site in february of 2026 and that site plan was approved without any variances so the site plan that was submitted followed all these constraints they're now coming back and asking for forgiveness and some of those requirements and i'm assuming they would update their site plan accordingly but the site plan that was approved by planning commission is in compliance

So just out of curiosity, before we get going too far, on a site that's an acre and these additional structures are proposed and a gas island and so on and so forth, where does the stormwater go? Where are the retention ponds?

That would be before a site plan gets stamped for building permitting. They have to submit... It's, what's the terminology? Pre and post construction conditions to mitigate any stormwater concerns. And it may not be shown on your exhibit. I do have a stormwater page in my original site plan that would have to be updated with the structure, but this particular property with the existence of the stream buffer, there'd be required some sort of detention on the property to mitigate the pre and post construction. all right uh who's here to represent 4441 green lid design so to answer your question for this particular that looks wonky um for this particular track in the proof site plan in february and the most northern part of this image a little bit off to the screen is the proposed detention pond that is uh four foot in depth

Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Name and address, please.

Hey, yes, Zach Elliott with Green Lid Design 114B, West Main Street in Gallatin. And what would you like to tell the board, sir? Okay. Appreciate your time today. A couple things. To start, I just want to point out there is a consolidation plat already recorded in the year 2020. I don't believe this GIS is illustrating it, but this is the eastern lot, and then there's a western. The one to the northwest there has been joined. So those are supposed to be the combination of those two. So, and also to speak to your stormwater question, the stormwater detention pond is in that northwest corner, which again is not pictured on that overall, but it's in the northwest corner of your site plan there, kind of in the handlebar, panhandle there of the site. So, and that has all been designed. The combination, the combining of the... of the parcels took place? 2020. Yes, I actually caught Brian Keith as he was walking out, pre-surveyor. He did that consolidation plat, and I want to confirm with him that it was recorded. We've got the record plat book.

Why would a 2020 consolidation not be on our system?

I couldn't tell you on that particular thing.

It's got the registered deeds stamp and everything.

If both property, like if a consolidation is done and the property ownership does not change, the tax assessor does not always update the lines unless it's physically requested or there's a transfer of sale where a new deed is recorded. The assessment office does not draw property lines that you see on our system via plat unless requested by the homeowner of the lot.

So if it's not a transfer, it's just a consolidation, they would not combine the, although it's been combined, they wouldn't draw the line in.

In some cases, yes. And some of them, I mean, it depends on probably the mapper or the timeframe where they're scheduling. But that's the same with like new subdivisions. If a lot, say a homeowner is splitting two lots and off of a five acre tract and they have two, two and a half acre tracts, it's probably going to show in our system as one five acre tract until either the homeowner requests that line to be on there or they sell part of that property and there's a deed that accompanies that.

When someone comes forward with a site plan that covers both parcels, none of the offices here?

Before the site plan is submitted, I require proof that the properties have been combined because I don't allow structures over property lines. And I would probably personally get with the assessment office to abandon that property line at that time.

I was going to stop in while I was down here afterward and ask them, yes, exactly what you're asking. Okay. You know, why it's not showing up on GIS.

I found it odd that we were looking at a map that was six years old and hadn't been updated. But go ahead with what you were saying.

And I'll also speak to Mr. Lawless, the... piece about last year. We did have a site plan for this that was approved. In the time since we coordinated with Mr. Keith, his survey, there were a couple of discrepancies on the property boundary. Namely, the one that triggered this variance request was the right-of-way that we had from the state GIS was significantly tighter than what his survey had showed. So, his survey is what you see here. His survey has the wider right-of-way on Coles Ferry. It's about 80 feet average right-of-way there. And that then, you know, encroached further into our site, and then we go, oh, this canopy is now not in the set. This fuel canopy is now in the setback. So, that is where we have come to this first variance request. I see here in the summary on the agenda that we've got 40 feet because it's a collector street, Coles Ferry. You'll see on the plan, we were under the impression, and this was what we were using on the approved plan last year, that it had to be a 60-foot setback. We are only requesting a 10-foot alteration to that setback as opposed to the originally assumed it was going to have to be a 30-foot reduction. So the requested reduction is less than what you're going to see on our site plan that we've given you. And then I would also, I guess a question for Chris, just to make sure I'm clear. You're reading out that it's a commercial site, C1 zone, but then the summary here says it's for parking, that it's using an industrial establishments figure, which I don't know, is that the correct use?

I think the, the, the summary is probably misquoted. We're using convenience center parking.

Okay. You're using what we're using on this. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, um, because under what you've got on the agenda, I don't think we would need a variance because one per 500 we would meet, but the, the. This is a service station that's kind of been a pillar of the area for a while. It's one of the few places to get sundries up that way. And the owner is really looking to modernize it to some extent, keep the charm that it still has, but add fuel services to modern NFIP standard, which includes a canopy and certain offsets and distances around the periphery of the canopy. And so that's really the genesis of this new development. And as far as the parking reduction of four spaces, our rationale here is that some of the retail uses are going to be sort of ancillary to the main convenience store. So there will be some crosstalk, some cross usage between, uh, the, the retail space, the three retail spaces you've got there. One of those, the central retail space of the three new buildings there is the like new convenience store. So he's, his plan is to demolish the existing one and, and have this new space flanked by two retails on the side. Um, So, you know, that was our sort of logic behind some of these two requests.

So your testimony is that once this is built, the old store will be demolished and removed? Correct. That is the plan.

I don't think they could put this structure on there without removing the old store first.

Yeah. He had looked—you know, we had looked at several options, including keeping the store and kind of expanding onto it. What about— public sewer? Yes, so we've got sewer running in the rear. We've been in coordination with Adenis, who is the sort of private consultant with West Wilson Utility.

On your plat here. I guess where Chris Luber signed off in September 2020 says public sewer certificate only applies to lot 4581. Yes. But now you're combining lots, so you're going to have more and higher sewer capacity now?

No. So, you know, that is, I think, procedurally for the consolidation plat. That's a requirement that if you've got sewer on site, they have to sign off. We would want sewer with capacity on site, I would think, too. Absolutely, yes. So we've been talking with, again, Adinas, who works with the West Wilson Utility District, about... You know, we're expanding the demands. Wilson County Water and Wastewater Authority. It's not West Wilson now. Excuse me. That's, yes, Wilson County Wastewater Authority to bring on this additional, you know, small amount of additional demand that's coming from these two retail companies. I mean, you've already got the store itself tying into that service on site. There's manholes as well that we're planning to relocate. I guess you all just have the variance sheet in front of you, but on our utility plan, we're showing that relocation. And, you know, we've had a couple rounds now recently with the stormwater division who also makes comments on onsite utilities and, you know, these various other things. That's through Jerry Warren, I believe the county works with over at Warren and Tuggle.

Any other questions for the applicant?

When you got... Your site plan approved in February 2026 at the Planning Commission. They didn't. They didn't ask anything about step systems and sewer capacity in your one lot. Doesn't have sewer in your combined. None of that was brought up into planning. They just surprises me.

OK, let's get this is all well and good, but let's get down to the issue at hand. Why do you? What's your basis for the request for the variance on the on the pump island?

It is not an enclosed structure, and that it really would make this a modern, usable structure. space for fueling. And same question on the parking spaces. What's your basis? The basis, again, is that there is a cross usage between the retail tenants that are flanking either side of the new store. And so that's... The parking will sort of be shared between those three, the two retail spaces and the country store. That was our rationale. And just, you know, the site overall, the boundary is an unusual configuration. And so it is sort of choking us in a... non-ideal fashion to be able to fit any more spaces. Does the board have any other questions for the applicant?

The existing building there, it says, what does it do?

That is currently, I believe, a residence, but they are looking at, that's why we've got a sidewalk and a couple spaces over there servicing its square footage. And mind you, that is included in this total, in the per square footage calculations you're seeing here, that existing building is included.

And you continue to live there?

There is a plan, I believe, to turn into a small retail space as well.

It will be retail space? Yes, yes.

Any other questions from the board?

The pumps only go in if you tear the existing building down, correct?

Not necessarily. I mean, if he's doing anything on this site, I think it's going to be installing fuel pumps. Okay.

Other questions?

No.

Okay. Does anyone else here wish to speak to 4441 Green LID? This is the store down on Coles Ferry. Yeah. Come forward, please.

Do you want your papers? No, that was up there. Thank you.

Okay. Hello. My name is Christy Chastain and I'm here to talk on case 4441. I reside at 4464 Coles Ferry Pike. I also own 4545 Coles Ferry Pike, which adjoins on the east side. I actually also have three letters here from residents in the area. I don't know what y'all want me to do with those.

Well, we can't consider them because it's not sworn testimony, but we'll be happy to put them in the record.

Okay, that's what I thought. I have them.

I'd be happy to put them in the record.

Here I have one from Dr. Roger McKinney, Patrick Ritter, and Kayla Youngquist. So I don't know who I'm handing them to. I'll take them right here. Thank you. All right. So first of all, I would like to address – The plat, I know we've discussed it's not, that's not right. And now I find out they're putting a retention pond in the northwest corner, which adjoint, it's, I touched that property in the northwest corner. And that's also where the blue line stream comes out. So that would be an issue to begin with with environmental. So I know right now I've talked to Stormwater and they have not approved any of this. They're still working on it. Let's go with part two. The small existing proposed house to stay that he's now said is going to be termed retail. In 2020, that was cited by TDEC for not sufficient use of a septic system. It was leaking. In 2025, they went back out and found that it was no longer leaking, there was no evidence of fixing it, and they didn't think anyone was there at the time. So it can't be cited again unless somebody turns it in. But that does have a leakage problem at one time. As far as the septic tap, there's one tap. It is a residential tap. The clay estate system is, for all practical purposes, tapped out. I have a residential lot I can't get a tap for because they said they're not issuing anymore, and now they're wanting to put four retail spaces on one residential tap. that are commercial retail spaces. So I think there's an issue with that. These are things I know you're probably going to be aware of, but I feel like I need to get them on the record. Now, let's go over... It is neighborhood commercial. If you look at your definition of neighborhood commercial, it says... This is limited to a narrow range, low density, low intensity retail service and convenience goods only. The district was designed for areas where large expansions and numbers of commercial operations are undesirable, but where individual stores are useful and desirable for the neighborhood. Four retail spots on one acre is no longer neighborhood commercial.

That's not what we're here to discuss.

I know, I know, but I'm getting to my variance points. Now, they're wanting a 10-foot variance so they can put gas pumps closer to the road. My other issue is, and I've talked to Chris about this, under neighborhood commercial, it is a convenience store with approval on appeal for a gas station. Now, he says convenience stores, gas stations, same thing. Under neighborhood commercial, it doesn't say it's the same thing. So I have questions about that. There is gas currently. I've mapped out at least six gas stations within three and a half miles. One's at 2.8 miles. So to ask for this 10 foot variance and put it closer to Coles Ferry, which already has a numerous account of accidents down through there. It's horrendous how many accidents we have right there in front of that store. I mean, we've had some near fatal accidents. My other issue with this is originally the store was told they couldn't pave that much pavement out there and Mr. King did it anyway. And so it has remained the way it was. Under this plat that they're submitted, they're having to do two. They're going to have to tear that up, which is good if they do it because Mr. King never did it, but that's a whole different situation. And they're going to have to take and have two ingress-igress. If you look at the plat that they're submitting, there's hardly enough room now for semis to get in there to deliver. And I actually took a picture this morning of a semi delivering And there's no way they're going to be able to get in there if they approve, if you approve this situation. This is this morning. This is the store here. This is the semi. This box truck here and this van here stays there all the time. That's not going to move.

I see it. Sure to them.

So this would be in where they're putting gas bombs.

Let me ask you, for the record, did you take this? I did.

I took it at 6 o'clock this morning.

Bye.

So, I mean, my issue is there's not room for gas pumps there, even with a variance. I mean, you put a variance of 10 feet, it's not going to work. My other issue is, math doesn't math, if you look at your plat in front of you, they want to reduce it down to 38 parking places. There's 28, and this is the plat they're wanting to get approved. They don't even have 38 parking places on their own plat.

I counted them. I thought I saw... Fuel tanks. They pardon? The fuel spots.

Oh, they're counting fuel tanks as spaces. So that's...

I don't know that that's allowed. I counted them, but I don't know that the calculation is correct. Do we allow the parking at, like, fuel tanks, fill-up locations to be considered parking spaces?

Not for a retail space. I mean, if a gas station is part of the use... I mean, I think we would typically work with a developer on that because if you're coming to a gas station, there are parking at fuel pumps. But as far as like counting them towards the retail space, no.

As it exists in front of us right now, this is not noted to be a replacement convenience store. It is noted to be retail space, correct?

uh they have the uses on there is convenience market and a retail and retail in their original site plan that i'm looking for that there's been some changes on what's been submitted to you all now they're interpreted as one in the same unfortunately in our zoning ordinance And on our C-1, as she mentioned, it does list uses as a gas station and convenience market separately. We don't have a definition for a convenience market. We do have a definition for a gas station, but it states that it is to be used interchangeably with convenience market.

Gotcha. Pardon us. We didn't mean to get off.

No, no, you're fine. You're fine. I have other issues with this because I don't see a sign for this new – Retail space on the plat and it has to be a monument style sign which is going to be on the ground. So where is that going to be in all this pulling in pulling out situation? It says. Also. Exterior lighting.

a lot of us are concerned that the exterior lighting of the site is going to cast further off of and onto the road everybody that's here they'll speak to this we're dealing with two things we're dealing with the setback on the gas pumps and we're dealing with the number of parking spaces i'm not here to talk about the lighting or or that let's just confine this to what we can actually okay well i'm just trying to argue why the gas pump shouldn't be close to the road I understand.

Okay.

I'm just trying to keep us on what we can.

I see what you're saying, but you see where I'm coming from. The closer the gas station, the gas pumps are put to the road inside the variance, the closer the light of the canopy is going to be to the road. That's my only.

So, but we have guidelines that tell them how much light can be at the property.

Okay. All right. I understand. I'm just, yeah. I'm just trying to fight the variance.

If you're asking for a variance on the light emission requirements, then we can talk about that.

Okay, okay.

I'm not involved in any of that right now.

Right, right.

It's two things.

I understand. I was just trying to place my point on the gas pumps. So I just thought that would tie in with that. So I apologize for taking up too much time on that.

Yeah, we got a lot of folks here.

I understand.

I just don't think it's worth anybody's time talking about too much about it.

Right.

We don't have the issue in front of us right now.

Right. But yeah, with the variances, I mean, I have other issues with the property, but I won't bring them up. So, I mean, I've had my property destroyed on one side. My fence is 10 foot in on my property now. So I don't think they should get any variances closer to lines than they already have. But thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Sir. Edward Conrads 4522 Coles Ferry Pike. I was going to address the lighting as well, but I won't put there. I'm sure they're in violation now. My I am directly across the street from this location. Just to be clear, I don't know at the time that they.

built what they have now. We had those controls in place, but we do now need a new construction.

So like all their new construction, or if they're going to tear down, they would be required a maximum of one candle foot at the property line.

very good so my my direct concern is the uh increased traffic on coles ferry and with the variants granting it for the gas pumps closer to the roadway i would think that there would be a need for a traffic impact study to be done there The accident history, which I don't have, but am pretty present and obviously a witness to some of the accidents that take place there. Ms. Chastain had also discussed the egress and entrance and exit the way it is now. It's just unacceptable. And if it was to move forward. Right now, it's just open, isn't it? It's just one big entrance. The whole property is one big entrance. So my understanding is if they use that property down towards the Academy end of the property, which we don't see reflected here on the photograph, if they made that even further than it is now, it would create a higher traffic impact than it has currently. But that would be my major concern is the impact of the gas pumps closest to the roadway. There's already, like I said, an increased presence of traffic on Coles Ferry. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Jerry McFarland, 5335 Cold Fair Pike, Commissioner of the 5th District. I had numerous calls on it, and I think the case had been presented with all the downsides of what this would be. And if you look at the picture, you can see numerous clutter, abandoned vehicles, whatever they are on the site. In addition to what's already been said, as I spoke with Chris Luber, Water Wastewater Authority, he said there is one residential tap there. There's no more taps available. And they're talking about putting four commercial sales points on one tap, and that's just not available. So I ask the board of the zone to deny this. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Hi, Jason Gartner, 4777 Coles Ferry Pike. I was all in support of them rebuilding this until I understood it became four retails with the understanding that they were possibly going to turn it, put the gas pumps off to the side a little bit more. It was my original conversation. In light of everything that's been given, I don't support the variance on this. And again, along with stormwater, not stormwater, but wastewater, I was the last person adenas clay tap that was allowed from a subdivision that was built in the 96 i live three down i just finished a house or in february of this year so they told me i was gonna be the last one so i do not support the path that it's on i don't support the variance thank you thanks anyone else

Good morning. My name is Jason Cloak. I live at 3079 Carol Bend here in Lebanon. I asked the board to deny this based on safety concerns and reasons. There's variances for the safety concerns of having that too close to the street for the gas pumps. I too live in the area very, very close and see crashes all the time. And if we had a dangerous substance closer to the road that would affect that and increase injuries or potentially death or even fires in the area, that is a huge concern of mine. The second is reduced parking is just going to cause that congestion to be parking on the street on the roadway edges. And if we allow reduced parking of a commercial development, it just causes the neighborhood a much greater issue. So I respectfully ask you to decline. Anyone else?

My name is Brian Giles. I'm at 2010 Allen John Way. I'm in opposition to this a couple of reasons. One, I want to correct a little bit about that is not a complete open space for pulling into that facility currently. You see the grass area and if you go by there at just about any time of the day, there's construction people there. That's their prime customer during the day. They all are towing trailers. So they pull in there and they typically will block 60% of the parking and that's what's going to happen with this gas station. So that the whole parking variance is just is just totally off base. It's not going to work and again with everybody that has already mentioned the accidents in the traffic that this is going to create this is unacceptable for the state but thank you thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Brenda Vicente, 1120 Brea Church Road. I think having a country store in a rural area is nice to have, but when you start turning it into retail with all the traffic, and I know they've asked for you to do the traffic study, and there has been some really horrific accidents in that area, so we ask that you do that. And, I mean, I know... The owners have even talked about putting a liquor store in there. And you start adding that type of retail to that little bit of space, it's just going to be a big parking lot of cars trying to get in and out. So thank you for your consideration.

County, right?

Yes, it's in the county.

We don't do liquor store in the county.

That's good. Thank you for that. All right. Thank you.

They're just a wealth of information. Oh yeah.

If you want to speak to that, excuse me that in the interest of time you rebut things that we are considering.

So I just want to point out that, you know, this went before the site plan review previously. These uses were approved already. This is simply, again, filling these two issues before you. So I understand that these two items we're requesting variance on have a ripple effect in some ways. But I just, that was my main point is just, you know, As you were saying, yeah. Is this the site plan that the Planning Commission approved? No, sir. No, the boundary is different. The boundary particularly, the main change is that rear, or excuse me, the frontage is back further into the site.

The site plan they approved, though, is no longer valid because the surveys were. The survey was incongruent, yes. That revised information is what's brought you here? Correct. All right.

I can pass it. I brought it with me if you'd like to see it. I mean, I've not received all my corrections on this, so there's still some outstanding things, but that's what was presented.

And he's got it. But the site plan the Planning Commission approved, is it very, very similar to this?

Oh, the store layout and everything, yes. And the two retail uses and the... This is what they approved here.

Yeah, that's the one that was before Planning Commission, yes, sir.

What we're looking at.

It's very similar. The front right-of-way, the Coles Ferry right-of-way is updated in what you have, but that also shows the drainage plans and everything as well.

The Planning Commission basically approved all of this.

There was no variances in the parking on the one the Planning Commission approved? Yes.

Well, they approved... but it must be something pretty significant or they wouldn't be back here because everything in the site shrunk.

Yes, due to the frontage. The frontage did come in. That was the error in the survey previously. okay yeah and then um the the you know storm water we have a we do have a monument sign on the newest site plan that is going to engineering review um out front um and um need any variances no no it does not need any additional variances it's already received some here uh existing

the no it's not existing it's already exceed it's already received variances for that i'd have to go back and pull the exact documentation it's referenced on okay you took my copy but it it has the boza case number and everything reference we require those to be put on site plans similar like if this case gets approved we'll have that there was a landscaping place that was going to go in down there somewhere that's not that's you okay

All right. Good deal. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Now, if there's no one else who wishes to address the board, then we'll close public comment on this case. And just a few notes based on the testimony that's been given. Again, appreciate everyone coming and certainly take all your concerns and comments very seriously. However, we do need to, the board, when we look at these type things, we only can look at the variances that have been applied for. So we're looking at the number of parking spaces that they would like a variance on, and we're looking at the request for a reduced front yard setback for the proposed gas pump island. Now, that being said, they have to demonstrate a... Defined hardship in order to achieve that that level of that request for that to be granted and I haven't heard anything in as far as a testimony from the applicant that would enforce their request that they have any hardship. It seems like to me the lots just, you know, maybe too small. There will be quite a number of cars circulating in and out of this site, so having the required number of spaces. Properly counted would seem to be very important and moving the gas pumps. The minimum distance off of the road for circulation purposes will also be very important. So that's those are my comments on this case and I'd be tickled to open the floor up at this time for the board to make any additional comments.

Yeah, I'm looking at the original site plan. What they have done is in between the pumps in the road. There was seven parking places on the original site plan that's been taken away. So now you've got less space. From the pumps to the road where before they had more you see here. I'm just making a statement. I'm just looking at what's provided to us. Also, you know, it does say that the Planning Commission approved this, not the one we're looking at. And I don't know if they took consideration about the sewer or anything else because we don't have that information.

Still waiting on some of that. I mean, I can go through all my comments. There's 13 of them if you want to hear all those, but it's not the board for that. That's my comment.

Other comments? I'll piggy off what you said very, very bravely. I see you're trying to overdevelop the lot. You know, you're needing a variance for parking and you're needing the pumps to be closer to the road because you're trying to put an existing, you've already got an existing tenant one, tenant two, tenant three, you know. My deal is, you know, you're trying to overdevelop and overbuild what you've got available space for. Yeah.

Just so the public's aware, if you develop within the criteria of the zoning ordinance, the lot is already zoned, so you don't have to be here. It's when you are outside of that envelope is what brings a development to this board, and that's what we have today. Any other comments from the board? Okay, that the board is through with their observations. We're open for a motion in regard to case 4441.

Mr. Chairman, I will move that we deny case 4441 based on staff recommendations and the testimony given today.

I have a motion to deny 4441 based on staff recommendations and testimony given. Does he have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And if not, all in favor of the motion, vote aye. Opposition vote no. And the ayes have it. Thank you everyone for coming. OK, our next case is case 4442. Catherine hair on behalf of. Cooper headland Inc. Request for hardscape storage. Property location is 3912 Carol Bend Rd lot to see. Tax map is 26 parcel numbers 39.16. Zoning is A1 Agricultural. Size of the property is 7.075 acres. We have staff recommendations on 4442.