Zoning boards evaluate special exception and variance applications by weighing applicant hardship claims against neighborhood impact concerns, requiring applicants to demonstrate unique property constraints while ensuring proposed changes don't adversely affect adjacent properties through traffic, noise, or visual impacts.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
05/21/26 Board of Zoning AppealsAdded:
Gentlemen, the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals is now in session for its meeting of May 21st, 2026. I'm Joey Hargus, the Metro Zoning Administrator, and I'll be presenting the cases for the codes department. Uh today in the public hearing, uh the board would ask if you would please put your phone on silent or vibrate so it doesn't interrupt today's proceedings. We greatly appreciate that.
Um over on the left side of the room is a copy of today's agenda. We're going to take some things a little bit out of sequence, but it's it had to do with the with the time period, which we only had five members. So, um we're going to hear everything on here except for things I'm about to announce that have been deferred by applicants. So, um but we'll get started. Uh first thing I'm going to cover are cases that will not be heard today either because the applicant has withdrawn their case or they have been postponed.
And the first case on that would be on page two, the top of page two, case 2026-9, concrete investment at 7-Eleven and B River Drive. The applicant has requested a deferral till July the 18th. Uh board members, we're we're requiring them to renotice and resign this case. Um the board had asked them to um come up with some new plans and and a different layout uh for these homes. and he's he's he's working on that. But um but while I've got you here, um I have one member who uh needed to become eligible to participate. I'll go on and get on the record uh for that case. Mr. Ransom, um you were not present at the hearing in which this public hearing took place, but you have been sent a copy of the the YouTube link to watch. Have you watched that case? Uh, case 19, sir, on River Drive.
This was the um case that had the duplex on it with two homes that set kind of a curved radius, a pie-shaped lot.
>> No, this I did not watch. I watched four links. I did not watch this one.
>> That's no worries. I'll I'll get that to you between now and the 18th of July.
We've got plenty of time.
>> Okay.
>> Um, so just wanted to just double check with it. Uh we are going to require them to renotice and send out new um new notices. This go this case goes back to February. So um it's been a minute. So I think the neighbors, you know, ownership may have changed in the neighborhood. We need to make sure new notices go out. So case 19 will not be heard today. Will be heard July 18th. New notices will come out.
The uh next case that is um that will be postponed is on page four.
Case 2026-63 TNR the appellent owner of the property at 7166 River Road Pipe requesting a special exceptions to allow meditation garden in R80 uh Lane uses religious institution that case has been deferred by the applicant until June the 18th and uh Mr. Tran Christy, I think we're sending out new notices for this one, too. Is that not this one? That's right.
Just the first guy. So, >> if you're here for case 63, that case will be heard June the 18th in this room at 1 p.m.
And I think I missed one. Oh, here we go. I did miss one. Uh, page two, case 2026-24.
Jordan Miller is the owner of the property at 2626 Foster Avenue. Mr. Miller was requesting a variance uh for his fence and he has withdrawn his application. So case 24 will not be heard today. So recapping cases 19, 24, and 63 will not be heard today.
Oh yes. Uh thank you. All right. One additional item on the top of page five, case 2026-68.
Mr. uh William Haney, the appellent owner of the property at 5208 Illinois Avenue. He was requesting an addition to a non-conforming structure. That case has been postponed until our next meeting of June 4th, and that'll be in this room at 1 p.m. So, case 68 will also not be heard. So, kind of recapping again, cases 19 deferred to July the 18th, 24 withdrawn, 63 postponed to June 18th, and 68 postponed to June 4th. All right. So, those are our preliminary announcements, Mr. Chairman and members.
Uh, before we go any further, the board does allow council members to address this board should they wish to prior to any public hearing began. Do we have any council members present?
I did not see any earlier. Seeing no hands, we will move right along then.
Okay. The next item for us is a consent agenda. So, what a consent agenda is is the chair reviews all the cases on today's hearing. And if in his opinion, uh you've met the criteria for the application you've requested and they feel that testimony would not alter the material facts, m the chairman recommends these cases for consent agenda. what happens the the board will vote and approve those cases uh by voice vote here at the beginning of the meeting. So I'm about to call some cases. If you are here in opposition to any of these cases I'm about to call only opposition. If you'll raise your hand please uh I will pull it from consent and we'll hear it on the order it's listed on the printed docket today.
So the U first case recommended for the consent agenda is located on page four. It's case 2026-67.
Mr. David Wilson, the appellent owner of the property at 2400 Alamita Street. He is requesting a variance from the fence height provisions in RS5. Are there any parties present in opposition to case 67?
Mr. Chairman, seeing none, um in this was postponed at our last meeting to allow the applicant and INDOT to get together and talk. They have they have come to an agreement. INDOT's going to have him make some modifications to the fence subject um pending approval from you guys. So, um so he is going to make some modifications to that fence to comply with INDOT's concern.
>> It's it's going on the consent agenda with the understanding that they will comply with INDOT, right?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
The uh next case recommended for consent is on page five, case 2026-69.
Maymun Hanuli, the appellant um an owner of the property located at 2019 Clarksville Pike requesting a variance in the separation distances between auto repair establishments in CS. Are there any parties present in opposition to case 69?
Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect.
Seeing no hands, the next case recommended for the consent agenda is also on page five at the bottom. Case 2026-71, uh, Nater Carinus, the appellent, Greater Love Kingdom Building Church, the owner of the property at 320 East Campbell Road, uh, requesting a special exception to allow the addition to the existing church in RS20. Are there any parties present in opposition to case 71 on East Campbell?
Mr. Chairman, no hands are reflected there. And finally, the last case recommended for consent is case 2026-72.
Miss Teresa Andro, the appellent owner of the property at 2008 Forest Green Drive, requesting a variance in street setbacks for a covered porch. Are there any um parties present in opposition to case 72?
Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect.
Seeing none, recapping your consent agenda today.
It's cases 2026-67, 69, 71, and 72.
>> Is there a motion?
>> Move to approve all consent agenda items.
>> Okay. Is there a second? Is there a motion, a second? All in favor?
>> Okay, those items go on the consent agenda. Okay, if you are here for cases 67, 69, 71, and 72, your cases have been approved. You are free to leave. Be sure to follow up with the codes department beginning on Monday or Tuesday next week. Sorry, Monday's holiday. Uh finish up your permitting, whatever permits you might need from the from the codes department. And all right.
All right, Mr. Chairman. So, back to our regular printed agenda. Um, going to take one case out of order. This is not a public hearing. We have a case that is tied on vote at our last meeting. Um, the motion to deny was made by Miss Yoder, seconded by Miss Carpek and um those voting for the motion were Yoder, Carpac, and Davis. Uh, Mr. Garrian, Miss Johnson voted against the motion to deny, and we had two members who were not present. Um, so I'll pull each one um individually. Um, Mr. Chairman, um, Mr. Pepper, have you reviewed the case in this record and do you wish to participate?
>> Yes, I watched the video and I wish to participate.
>> Okay. And how do you vote, sir?
>> I vote in favor of the motion to deny the application. I did not I don't believe there is a hardship that has been identified and I don't believe there are any exceptional circumstances.
>> Okay. And just for the record, I'm ask Mr. Ransom. Uh, Mr. Ransom, did you review the record in this case?
>> Uh, yes. And is this regard to the thousand foot daddy in the back? Yes.
>> At 11:07 North Fifth Street, >> correct? Yes.
>> And how do you vote on this case, sir?
>> Uh, I vote in favor to deny the request for all the reasons uh that Mr. Pepper stated. And also for the record, uh, you can get a threecar garage in a 35x 24 footprint easily. So, >> two. Okay. that case uh case 56 has been denied on a vote of 5 to2. Um >> uh administrator uh Mr. Hagus.
>> Yes ma'am.
>> I wish to change my vote uh after I review the current uh existing ordinance. I was uh somewhat when I was deliberating mistaking the size. So now I understand if the smaller one was allowed within the setback uh which was 10 ft. So for that reason I wish to change my vote from uh no to yay.
>> Okay, Mr. Garing, I'll poll you as well.
Any changes to your vote in this case?
>> No, sir.
>> All right. Let the vote reflect that this case has been denied on a vote of 66 um to one and um that application has been denied. Case 56 is okay. All right, Mr. Chairman, to our next case. Um, so a little little unusual procedural matter.
Let me take care of on a couple of these cases.
Uh, the case at the beginning of our agenda, case 2026-001, Janice and Roman Reese were the appellants and owners of the property at 7531 Bidwell Road. They were requesting a special exception for Beach Volleyball and uh variance from the setback requirements. The variance has been withdrawn by staff. It is not needed.
They comply with the code uh on that.
So, it's just a special exception. This was a public hearing was took place on February the 19th and was closed at that time. Um, Mr. Garrian and Miss Yoder were not members of this board at that time and unfortunately are not eligible to participate. They're I will not make them leave the room. They can stay in the stay in the room and watch. Uh, but be sure not to to engage in any questions or or vote in any motions that may occur. We'll have a couple of those today for for for the new new folks with us. Uh but the members um who who are present um Mr. um Pepper and Mr. Ransom were not present at the original public hearing. So I'm going to poll them now publicly. Uh Mr. Pepper, have you reviewed the case in this record and do you wish to participate?
>> Yes, I have reviewed it and watched the video and I wish to participate.
>> Okay, Mr. Ransom, same question of you.
Have you watched the video and do you wish to participate in this case?
>> Yes, I've uh viewed the video and wish to participate as well. Okay. So, we'll have we'll have four members uh that are before you present. Miss Davis did participate, but she is not present today. Um again, just a reminder for the chair that the public hearing was closed. You may want to open it, you may not. You're completely your call, but I'm going to do a recap uh as best I can of of what's occurred since then. Uh let me get kind of refresh your memories. So, the subject property is located on Bidwell Road. That's the parcel that you see in green here.
Um, the Reese's have operated a rec center, what we classify as recreational center.
Um, at this property for going on about 25 years, maybe longer. Um, I started work in codes department 1998. I think it was occurring then. Um, just to give you some idea, this is an area. This is the the the most current aerial photographed in in 2025.
And you see the the let me zoom in there a little bit. Uh you can see the the volleyball courts located on it on this site. These are beach volleyball courts.
Um give you an idea of how old I look back through Metro's um aerial photographs. This is from 1996 and you see a sand pit there then. So, uh, been out here for some time. Uh, Miss Ree contacted our department, uh, to get I think we were doing some permitting on a house or something and we discovered you don't have a permit for this recreation center out here. Um, anyone who would know that conversation is uh, is who this room is named after, Mr. Sunny West. He is deceased. So, I, you know, we just don't have any records of it. But to give you some idea, this is the site plan. We thought at the time bring them back, bring them to the board, let you guys look at it, place any conditions on, hear from neighbors, kind of hear how things are going. Um, we've had testimony from both the applicant and opposition that that live down the um Bidwell Road, which is the it's kind of this gravel road off the the name Bedwell Road. If you see kind of where my cursor is moving along there, it may not. me.
So, the the going back to the to the main, this is the public road known as Bidwell Road here. And the there's a gravel drive that runs off Bidwell that is named Bidwell Road, too. It's not a public street, but there's a driveway that serves the Reese's lot as well as other owners that you see in the um you can see it in this aerial photograph how it runs the property boundary back to this lot.
Okay, so this was the site plan submitted by the appellants and you see uh the most recent aerial photograph and zoomed in four courts located there.
It's an old swimming pool that was on the property. Um you did hear testimony from both both sides in this case. Um you did close the P on February the 19th.
Um you did ask the both sides to go talk to each other and and if there's any sort of agreements that could come from those conversations. I know they have met uh and and discussed, but we've we've had to postpone this case multiple times due to just membership and not having a quorum. So um I I'll leave it to you guys to decide what you wish to do. If you wish to open the time and how much time you'd like to get a lot each side, we can do that. Um, >> well, uh, it's been, this was heard back in February. I think since then, both parties have retained council that weren't weren't here in February. I believe I'd certainly like to hear and I watched the video yesterday, but I'd like to hear how things have developed since then. So, I'd be in favor of opening it. I don't know if we want to put a There'll definitely be opposition.
So, um I'm fine with 10 minutes or if anybody wants to decide or if you want to limit it, I'm fine with that, too.
And I and I know some I can't remember who exactly, but somebody it may have been you, Miss Johnson, somebody wanted some additional information about the site and I think the length of the road and the width of the road. And so, you may have questions about that. So, What are your thoughts on time?
>> Three minutes, but >> three minutes each.
>> Yeah.
>> Or five minutes each.
>> Yeah, I'd probably want five. I know.
Okay. So, we'll uh I'll make a motion that we reopen the public hearing. Give each side five minutes exclusive of answering questions that that we ask.
Second. So, there's a motion to second.
All in favor? Okay. So, we'll reopen the public hearing for >> Okay, Mr. chairman if uh would at this time we'll have the the process and I I didn't cover it in my initial announcements and apologize for that but um for all the cases today that have that do not have oppositions where it's just the applicant you'll have five minutes to present your case to the board in cases generally uh that are on our normal agenda for docket if there's an oppos case with opposition um each each half of that case both the supporters and opposition will get 10 minutes to speak that's 10 minutes in total to divide amongst speakers, not 10 minutes per speaker. So in this case, and we're talking here, it would be five minutes for the applicants to speak and then from five minutes um for the opposition to speak. The applicant can have a rebuttal period, but they he would need to save some of his five minutes to to move into that rebuttal. Um so with that, I see Mr. Henry's here. Miss Ree, you're present. The opposition present in this case. Just show of hands. Okay, good. All right, with that, I'll turn it over to you guys to present your case and I'll start the clock um after your introduction, but once you're into testimony, and I'll stop the clock for any questions and answers to those questions.
>> Thank you, Joey. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Janice Rereath, and together with my husband, Roman, we have stewarded Nashville Beach and Jolton for over 30 years. Today's request is not to introduce a new use. It is to preserve and formalize a long-standing community recreational use that has served youth, families, athletes, and the broader Nashville community for decades. Over these 30 years, we have operated responsibly, maintain strong neighbor relationships, responded directly to concerns, and worked closely with Metro staff to ensure this request meets the criteria before you. We originally met with Sunny West in the early 90s as we began began our journey to develop courts and provide a place for the community to play to come together through collaboration with the Association of Volleyball Professionals in California. You have a packet in front of you that has all of the documentation of the meetings we had with our neighbors. We actually have never had a complaint except when there was a post on Facebook about a social media uh sale uh which was just my husband at the end of the season getting frustrated with all the work that he does to actually provide for other people. Uh we also allow our neighbors to run their water line down our driveway uh which is the entry to our property which is where the people come in and out. Uh we have also provided resolution for uh the dust which really only affects one neighbor that's not here. Uh I presented it to her. She's very supportive of it. We have both a pack that we can uh put down for solar and we also just bought a 40-galon uh extension for our tractor that we can just drop water right on the driveway uh if it's uh needs if it's dry. And I'll take >> Can I ask you uh watching the the the uh hearing from back in February, you you um said that you only use the this area 65 days per year, which is a little over about two months. and somebody in the opposition, I apologize, I can't remember the name and I couldn't catch all the names because of the video, but they said it was eight months a year uh use and there were about 30 cars that showed up for for each event. Can Can you talk to us about that because there's a discrepancy there because I heard you say a couple months a year and then I heard somebody in the opposition say it was used eight months a year.
>> We only do things on the weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. Occasionally we do Friday tournaments in the summer for juniors because it's easier for parents and that's adds up to the amount of days but it is over a period of usually April to October.
>> Okay. But it's not at all Monday through Thursdays.
>> No, not during the week. We might have a party or celebration. We had a recent engagement party for two players that met there that came out on a Wednesday.
But no, our tournaments that we offer with the AVP and beach volleyball are on the weekends and they only are from 8 to 5, >> Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
>> Uh, Saturday and Sunday. And then we have like three Fridays that we do.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you.
>> Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
>> No, go ahead.
>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Sean Henry representing the property owner. I want to come through the general provisions applicable to any special exception application as well as the specific criteria that apply in this case. Uh integrity of the adjacent area designed located proposed to be operated with adequate public facilities. It's been demonstrated that those adequate public facilities are present for this site. Um a and importantly the any inv any adverse impact shall not be to the extent that it impairs the reasonable long-term use of those properties in the immediate area. This is a 10acre site.
These are all large lots on either side of the property. Behind the property on the south is 82 acres unoccupied vacant land and uh they've been in communication with that property owner and there's no objection to it. design architectural uh compatibility minimal and consistent with the residential property in the backyard. So based on the operational characteristics of this, it's daylight hours only. There's no lighting. Uh it's weekend play and so it's really not being used despite the size of the sand courts. It's not being used really any different than someone who would have a backyard swimming pool and and and routinely have, you know, people over to use that facility in their backyard. natural features.
There's significant surrounding landscaping, mature trees along the property boundaries. It's relatively isolated in that in that area of the county. Um the traffic impact uh you've you've heard the evidence from my client. They've been operating there for more than 30 years. The level of traffic is really insignificant, particularly when it's limited to the weekend. Um >> what about let me ask you this. What I heard some of the neighbors voice concern about is the narrowness of this road and the fact that it's gravel which especially in the summer it kicks up a lot of dust. Is there anything practically that can be done about that to to mitigate that?
>> Well, with since they have their water lines uh down that road, it would be difficult to do anything with that road.
We did offer to pave it, but that doesn't make it any wider. And in the 30 years that we've operated, there's occasionally that somebody runs into each other in and out, but that happens on a regular basis because that's our easement that we provide to the neighbors to come in and out. So you might have the postal service or Amazon or somebody else coming in and out and you just there's a place to pull off and there's a place to go forward.
>> So because the utilities, you can't widen the roads that the utilities run along the side of the current gravel road.
>> Utilities, they they dug their the road.
Yeah. And and trench for their water line.
>> Gotcha. Okay.
U let me quickly touch on the specific conditions because we do want to hold a minute in rebuttal. So recreation center um the setback that was that was discussed early on is is satisfied the 100 foot setback is satisfied with this application. The landscape buffer yard there's substantial mature vegetation along that perimeter boundary uh that's been demonstrated. Uh and then and finally the street standard. So there's three criteria for this special exception use to operate. Bidwell Road is a collector avenue. Uh this kind of operation needs to be on a collector street and that appears from the Nashville next plan. So we would like to reserve as much time as we can for rebuttal. But uh based on all of the evidence that you have in front of you that this client um property owner has submitted uh at the first hearing since the first hearing and in front of you now and we want to make all of that part of the record in this case. Everything has been submitted since that hearing.
Uh we would like to add that to this record today. Um we ask for add the extra time here the remaining time to for rebuttal.
>> You've got a minute over a minute left for rebuttal. All right. Thank you all.
So, we'll hear from the opposition.
If you please, sir, hit that button right at the base of your microphone stand.
>> If you can give us your name and address, please sir, for the record.
>> My name is Gary.
I live at 7 I'm Gary Vaughn. Uh live at 7541 Bidwell Road and I'm two properties from the Reese's.
And this is my dad Jim and he lives next to the Reese's.
Um do you want to introduce yourself?
>> I'm Chim.
I live next to this this loll mess.
It's it's a it's cold violator.
>> Hey, can you give us your address?
Street address, please, Mr. Volen.
>> Your address?
>> It's 75 41 >> 35. I'm >> 7535.
>> All right.
Um, Brandon Cox. I live at uh 7555 Bidwell Road uh which is at the very end of the the driveway of the easement.
>> And you guys got um just a little stapled together packet that's basically a review of what we've been going through for the past several months. Um we've got signatures of everyone on the driveway.
uh which and I have to say the easement is not wasn't granted by the Reese's. It was part of the development when Fitzgerald made the subdivision.
So they knew the easement was there be before they bought and and what was going on. Um >> so Mr. on to focus on the the the traffic. Uh Miss Reese, you heard her just say that the events there just Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Is are you having issues with traffic just on those days or are you having issues with traffic on other days?
>> It's when the volleyball players come in and leave. It's pretty much it's not as bad during the day, but when everybody comes in in the morning, there's a real issue there with dust mainly on Miss Fitzgerald. And uh she wasn't able to be here today because of her health. And um there's really no the road's not wide enough for two-way traffic. So, somebody has to stop and either back up or be uh visual enough to pull off into her driveway so to let other people pass.
And it's it's a it's just a lot of trouble.
>> Well, are there adequate pulloffs? I know a lot of I haven't seen this road, but a lot of gravel roads, especially in rural areas, have turnoff areas. even if it's every, you know, 50 yards or so.
Are there are there are there long stretches where you got to put it in reverse for, you know, two or 30 hundred yards, or is this a situation in which you can back up? Well, basically from Miss Fitzgerald's driveway to Bidwell Road is one lane about 12 ft wide and uh we live in a curve on Bibwell Road and to back out on the the black top right there is dangerous and so either got to pull into Miss Fitzgerald's driveway or I don't you it just it often ends up in a head-on who's going to back up kind of issue. Also, I'd like to say about the property, there's four volleyball courts there now and when they started there was one and the thing has grown substantially and and they got a big loud radio and lots of people yelling and screaming. There's a lot of there's noise issues there too.
And so >> before this application was made, had you made any complaints to the police about the noise?
>> I did not.
We've been very compliant about it. Um but or accepting of it, but just uh haven't really complained other than when we found out he was trying to sell it as a business. And that's another issue that I have is how can he operate a business in a residential area? Um, this couple is 75 years old and I don't think they're playing a whole lot of volleyball. So, to me, and I know Roman, um, he's got to have an angle for anything he does for whatever reason. And I think that is for profit.
And I've heard him say that himself to my face. You know, that's how I make my living. And I don't understand how he's able to do that in a residential area.
>> Well, would it alleviate some of your concerns if a condition was placed on the the special exception that it only it didn't run with the land that it >> it just applied while these owners own the property?
it would definitely make it better, but I don't know that that's the answer with the traffic and the noise and um you know, one thing did come to my mind is maybe that city might take that driveway over and and uh develop it and make it a two-lane driveway, but I don't know what entails what what would that would entail. Well, um I don't think there's been any environmental impact studies done on this or no. Uh, I don't know if the health department's okay with the number of people that they have up there, um, with the being on a septic system and in the residence and I got a lot of questions >> and those and probably most of those we couldn't answer. Uh, we're just here to determine whether they qualify for the special exception.
This wasn't really a bad thing when it first started, but um when you got, you know, they showed on the picture that there's like 45 parking places now, and I've never seen it fill up, but I've seen a lot of cars up there, a lot of people, a lot of noise.
>> May I add something?
>> Sure. Um you you you have two minutes.
>> Sure. I won't take >> You can divide it up however you want to.
>> That works. Um, and I I think to answer your question about the the the initial from the main road, the actual road in the driveway to the the entrance to the volleyball courts, I think it's around 500 ft. As Gary said, it's, you know, a 10 to 12t wide single lane driveway. Um, steep drop on either side. It's anywhere from six to 12 feet depending where you're at on the driveway. So, there's no true turnaround. Um, and I think at the meeting in February, uh, Miss Davis, who's who's not here, had asked that question about essentially a temporary, uh, exception that would run with the ownership. I think for most the neighbors, that would put the long-term concerns at ease. Uh, I'm in my 40s. I have a nine-year-old son. Uh, we love it out there. I I don't know that we ever intend to leave, but I worry about what the future might be if there is just a recreation kind of permanent permanent type permit associated with the property. So, I think among the neighbors there's varying levels of concern, but I think that would be one underlying concern for everybody is the long-term impact of of a permit or an exception like that.
I uh live next door and and this this couple are breaking the codes.
I don't like that. It's not right. It's it uh uh they're not respecting the codes.
We have seven homes off a one lane gravel access drive. Two vehicles cannot pass. One has full has to pull over to the nearest private drive.
They ignore our speed and our trespassing signs.
They have advertised to sell as a business.
on the game on the game days when they're playing the dust and the traffic from 30 to 50 vehicles on scheduled game days. The elderly lady in a trailer out front suffered from dust for years and she she wrote a a letter which is in a pack that was passed around. It it tells a lot about her situation.
Three or four volleyball courts, volleyball noise, yelling, loud music.
I suspect in inadequate septic facilities as I have smelled smells toilet poop odors on occasion while in my garden which is which is 30 40 feet from the nearest court, >> you know. Okay, thank you all. That's uh that's your five >> We appreciate it.
>> How can you not respect the codes?
>> Uh the >> sir, I'm sorry we're we're you've run out of time and >> we've only given each side five minutes.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you all. Thank you all.
>> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
>> Mr. Chair, >> I'd just like to speak quickly on one matter given it's part of the discussion. My understanding is a special exception cannot be granted to an individual. Um however um the board the the board could do something like granted for a time period.
>> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I remember now Ashanti asked that question at the last Okay. And I Okay. Thank you.
I'll make one comment on the driveway because when um our neighbors were digging up and trenching the road and had to block it uh with some of the vehicles, you could still on the side of the road, you could still have another vehicle come around. um it's not ideal and we have a driveway rules which are in your packet that we provide uh to be able to have people do the pulloff um by Miss Fitzgerald's driveway or if somebody's coming in not to have them wait on the road or vice versa. I sit in my driveway before I leave and you know look down to see if somebody's coming out to let them come out first.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, um my client would be willing to pave or gravel u two or three pull outs in both directions. U you know, one on one side, two on the other, whatever, so the traffic can easily pass in that 500 500 foot stretch. Um if we cannot based on legal council's input limit this to the current owner which we're completely satisfied with, we would recommend that the permit be for a period of 5 years upon which we would then return to this body. Thank you.
>> So let me ask you on the pullouts that that might solve a lot of problems. So the utilities are running down one side of the So you could put pull outs on are utilities down both sides of the drive or just one side. Do you know? I don't know exactly where they they reeried it.
I I think they're on one side. We already have a wider area for that, which is where they used it to be able to have another car come by when they were blocking the road for the trenching. So, there is some wider areas that you can pull one side to the other.
We always tell the players, we have driveway rules that we put whenever we send things out. Um, and there's staggered arrivals and obviously staggered departures depending on how you play and when you leave. So, um, all the players don't show up at the same time. They kind of come in over a period of a couple hours.
>> If your games start though, if you have four courts and your game start at say 8:30 on Saturday morning, I would expect though you'd have a lot of people probably >> We only have two players on a team. So, there's only four players on a court and many players come as a ride together.
It's kind of a carpool, especially right now with the price of gas. So, we don't have a lot of people and they we basically uh send out a pool sheet that says who starts first. So, they come early. Sometimes they arrive an hour before. We had some people come in from Fort Wayne. They were there an hour before. Uh and I've asked people in the past, very rarely do they run into another vehicle at all.
>> Finally. Finally, Mr. Chairman, members, I know we're out of time. They've been a successful operation there for more than three decades. successful, but they're not quite as busy as our pickle courts, pickle ball courts that we see everywhere now. So, uh, the three conditions that are necessary for this approval have been satisfied, and we're happy to make some adjustments as I stated.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> And we do have a resolution for the dust. We both bought a 40-galon uh piece for our tractor to be able to put water.
>> Ma'am, I'm sorry. I got to cut you off.
I cut off the other side. So, to be fair, >> did anybody have any questions? But I'm sorry. Can you hold just a second in case anybody has questions? Somebody might have questions. Any questions?
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. So, we'll close the public hearing and discuss.
I mean, it seems to me I mean, obviously the the road and the traffic seems to be from a safety standpoint, logistics, frustration standpoint. I mean, there are utilities buried under roads all the time. Um, and this is not a paved road.
It' probably be some type of gravel road out of Crusher Run or something like to that extent. Um, obviously there's probably drainage swells on one or both sides of the road. Um, but it seems like there are things that can be done to take care of, you know, some of the major concerns from the neighbors. It's been operating for 30 plus years and uh unfortunately there's no documentation other than the photo that Mr. Harus provided. But um you know I'm leaning to some type of a short-term approval giving them a lot of elbow room to maybe fix some of the issues with their neighbors. So when they do come back here in two, four, five years, um maybe they can come back here with taking care of a lot of those issues and it would help with the neighbors worry about it being sold as a business. Um that's kind of my two cents.
>> Yeah, I I think I agree with you. I think maybe at two years and I mean there's no way right now because we don't have a site plan. We can't tell them we can't get an agreement today about where you're going to put turnoffs or where you can potentially widen it.
But I think that if they if if the applicant knows that they're going to have to come back up for review and that they haven't done a good job of satisfying the neighbors in terms of the pull outs, it seems like the big issue is the the the dust and the the narrowness of this gravel road. And >> um >> and if it's it I mean they meet all the they meet all the requirements of the special exception. it boils down to is will allowing this impair the reasonable long-term use um of the joining properties and um you know um and what capacity right I mean there's reasonable at what point does it reach you know too many people and health concerns you know if this was true operating business there's a handful of boxes they have to check that's obviously outside of >> you know our jurisdiction but >> um I mean I my inclination is to give some type of short-term approval for them to go take care of X Y and Z.
>> Shortterm being >> uh enough time to take care of those issues. Probably a couple years. Um and you know I don't know how you would even limit you know what's the right capacity. I don't know the answer to that. Um, but give them the opportunity to go get things done that they need to do. Um, gives them time to, you know, get estimates, get people out to the site, do the work they need to do, raise the money, raise funds. Um, so I mean, it has been operating for a long time, but it seems like it's a little bit outside of the bookends uh, for whatever reason. So, I'd like to continue to operate. I think it just kind of bring it back into compliance would be what I prefer.
So uh the February uh I think now it meets uh special exception um you know requirement uh in February what I was concerned is the location of the court because it was I thought it in the uh 1716 220 but after I fully examine uh the court location of the court is not requirement so they meet uh the distance requirement that was my hung up on that in February. So I now say uh on the books uh they meet uh the requirement because of the location of the house to the property line uh adjacent to the residential zone and I do hear uh the what our neighbor is don't want to see happening is uh that residential business uh or rather uh recreation uh thing has been happening 30 years all of a sudden become like a fullblown uh business that's uh they don't want to see but unfortunately uh our special exception rule is not like a uh short-term rental permit so it comes with the land so I with uh same page as Mr. ransom. Uh we would like to grant uh the special exception for probably two years to see to give uh you know the neighbor some relief so they could come up with front of us.
Okay. Yes, they did meet the requirement or no, they are still uh having you know so much issues and that time we can consider if we continue to renew accept special exception or not at that time.
So a five years will be be too long in my opinion and maybe two year maybe too small for the business purpose but you know somewhere not five years that would be uh my preference and also I would like to point out is uh those 500 ft will be uh probably more frequently used by the player who visit uh weekends.
However, I would like to point out this is a shared driveway who live beyond applicants uh property because they do have four, five or maybe six property beyond that entry from the bit well. So, there's a shared driveway because uh this applicant has been uh doing uh valuable uh recreation the past 30 years. they are maintaining that portion uh you know for the past 30 years but actually you know some uh neighborhood association or some five six uh properties they do do the shared maintenance so for that reason I'm not sure you know having every uh expenditure and maintenance uh you know to just one applicant is the right solution or not. So with that sense I think applicant has been doing great maintenance try to the best they can. Of course you know uh dust is the hard thing and of course they do have rules but if the player does not follow the rule that's another thing but I would like to believe the person who participate uh those games uh try to be neighborly and try to be um you know follow the rules and try not to endanger those residents. So, so with that I would like to come up with special timeline to grant uh the special exception. I I think as of right now they meet uh uh the condition of the special exception requirement.
>> Would you like to make a motion or I'm sorry you were about to speak >> right. One thing we haven't addressed is the noise. And I would think we might entertain a condition that the noise isn't amplified or the music isn't amplified. And also that the um the special exception is limited in growth to what's there now >> for volleyball.
>> Four volleyball courts.
>> Okay. Was that a motion or potential motion?
>> No, I think my colleague has a better motion, but I wanted to add those things for consideration.
So I would try. So I make motion to grant uh application based on uh this application meets uh special exception requirement. However, uh we would like to limit uh the time period to two years and also would like to request uh the variable court will not expand uh current four courts and uh the music should not be amplified.
>> So the the not not being more than four courts would be a condition of the motion.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I'll second that motion.
Well, I think we you're I can because a second I can I have something to say.
Okay. Don't we need to add the part um where they're going to put drop offs along the road and the dust control measures?
>> Let me let me Did I I seconded it. So, let me we'll now have a discussion.
>> Right. That's what that was the discussion.
>> I I don't I mean my thought on that is for us to get an agreement from the applicant today. I don't know that we're ready for that because I think we'd almost have to have a site plan and know where they're going to put it in. And I mean, to me, we leave that to the applicant knowing that the neighbors have an issue with that. And that when this comes back up in two years, if the neighbors come in and say nothing has been done, we're still having the same issues, there's there's no turnoffs, then that would be addressed at at the time. I I'm I'm satisfied that this applicant is genu genuinely wants to cooperate with the neighbors and I'm and I think I'm certainly not always satisfied of that with some applicants.
So, I mean that's the only practical way I know to do it, but if if I'm missing something, I'm I'm glad to >> No, I agree with Mr. Pepper. I mean, it's kind of hard to figure out what boxes to check, but I think we're it's it's clear we're giving a shortterm approval for them to have the time to take care of some of the neighbors concerns and perhaps their concerns as well. So, if they come back in two years with show no progress, I think that's going to be tough for them to get any type of further approval or extension or anything like that. Um, but have at it.
Christina, you want to add anything else?
>> No, no, it's fine. I'll I don't have any further comments.
>> Okay. So, uh, we'll take a vote. All in favor of all opposed. Okay. So, that passes four to nothing.
Okay.
>> Case case one is approved on a vote of four and zeros with the conditions as stated. Um, gentleman question can come see me. I'll be happy to answer that for you, sir. All right. Our next case, case um beyond page two, case 2026-38, Georgina Income, the appellent owner of the property at 3824, Brick Church Pike, requesting a special exception for religious institution in RS20.
The applicant seeking to use the existing buildings as religious institution referred to the board under section 17161 170. Um looking back on this case, U Miss Yoder and Mr. Garrian are not eligible to participate. And Mr. Ransom, you have been sent a video. Were you able to watch this case?
>> Uh, yes, I was. And I would like to participate.
>> All right. If so, you will be participating in this case today.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And just looking back, I watched back over some of the tape. The the board did close the public hearing in this case. Um, >> you say we did close it.
>> You did? Yes, sir. If you if you want to take additional testimony, you need to reopen. Uh that let me pull up the information I have just kind of refresh the members present.
Uh subject property is located on the west side of Brick Church Pike. Uh it is try again.
This would be the subject property located here. Brick Church Pike is located on the north south axis here at this point.
And another view of the subject site, the home it's located. There's an existing building located on the site.
Uh how this came to us originally, Miss Inum, we had received a complaint about her property using as a um a wedding venue. my office uh reached out to her and made a determination that indeed it was a winning venue and that use needed to cease. Miss Incam then applied for u religious institution use of the property which is allowed in in the RS20 zone district uh by special exception from this board. Um you all had a hearing and you watched the the tape uh on that. I I did in the in the interim I went back and reviewed the case um based on some of the testimony that was presented here just to see um and and I sent a clarifying letter to Miss Income and she's in her seat as far as not using the the venue for weddings and and and and the such. So I think I think we've got that at least that portion straightened out between Miss Sanctum and I we understand have an agreement on that. Um but we are dealing with this as a religious institution under 1716170.
Um the requirements for a um um for that are listed in that section and that's um essentially testimony I've got to this point. Uh I know there's opposition present. I see a show of hand folks in OP. Okay. I do see thought there were some folks here. U Mr. chairman. Um kind of the call from you guys as far as um reopening the public hearing and then for how long for each side?
>> Uh okay. I I would definitely like to hear things have changed some from last time. I you know I'm fine with 10 minutes or five minutes. We could probably get it done in five minutes aside. Is that >> I think I think five's good.
>> Okay. Everybody okay with that? Okay.
Okay. So, we'll reopen the public hearing for five minutes for each side.
>> Okay, Mr. Chairman. All right. With that, uh, if the applicant wish to come first to the table and present, um, kind of get the board up to speed, I guess, from from the last hearing what's occurred and, uh, how your case meets the requirements for special exception.
Again, just a reminder, um, you do have five minutes and there is a group of folks that wish to speak um, after you.
So, if you want to save any of that time like that first group did, be sure to let us know. You want to save some time and we'll >> Okay. and give you an opportunity to save some time for rebuttal. So, >> good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Thank you so much again, Miss Christie, Mr. Hargas, for working with us diligently since our last meeting.
>> And ma'am, can you give us your address?
We need that for the record.
>> Gina Georgina in 3824 Break Church Pike.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, our original application was for a religious exception. We added additional veage based on the existence of activity in our neighborhood which we assumed were permitted. There's Helen Glade right next door to us. There's also a new one, the Pearl Retreat. And we assumed that having a retreat center and all these activities that were already listed on their websites were permitted, which is why we included it.
So once Mr. Hardis went back reviewed and determined that certain usage was not permitted and whether or not we wanted to appeal we said no you can take that out because our primary purpose was for the religious institution. We hosted our neighborhood blog party. So we included blog party. We hosted my husband and I had our 25th wedding anniversary at the property which is the only wedding that has occurred at the property till date. So we just took out additional VBH that creates confusion and so we'll leave our time and respond to a position.
>> Okay.
Any any questions for the applicant before we sit down? Let me see if you've got any questions.
>> So So to clarify, you're has nothing to do with the wedding venue or anything related to any of that.
>> Absolutely not.
>> Okay. So what will occur on the property? Remind us. You told us last time.
>> Sure. So my husband and I are pastors.
We've been pastors in the Nashville area for almost two decades. Our last known location is at the global mall. And our council members in Annok have written to the board in our support. So as a church, if we were a nuisance, they will absolutely not be doing that. And I think some of the confusion is last summer, my husband and I had three personal parties.
That's what um created the complaint, but that's not what this application is about. So, we'll answer any questions.
>> Yes. Could you give me one last clarification? I don't I may have uh misread it but the last application I read I memoed uh house the existing house will be used as a retreat center >> and wedding party guest house that was still uh written like that and then barn will be used as a private event and stage for such and walking trail will be used for the guests to meander around.
So that was my understanding of the uh your application. Currently it stands.
Am I missing something or >> the application as it stands is we are using it as an a religious institution.
The barn in the back is going to be our meeting place because as pastors we don't want to go rent another place and pay rent when we have space sitting. So we've taken out all that because the reason we included that is because there were people properties in our neighborhood performing those activities. So we assumed that was permitted. But since then codes has written to those individuals to let them know it's not permitted. And prior to codes even doing that, we had already agreed to Mr. Hargus' determination because that was just secondary additional vebage that we added because we assumed it was permitted.
>> So all these usage will be eliminated.
So correct.
>> Could you reinstate what your intention and application you would like your property to be? Yes, our application is to use our barn and the surrounding land as a religious institution for Dominion Ministries in which we are pastors and our ministry activities.
>> Yes. And I I believe uh at the last hearing you mentioned you have very unique style of ministry and many people are uh online or calling uh ministry. So with that uh your religious activity so existing barn and you know those places beautiful place will be how do you envision or will be used with that your type of unique uh ministry.
>> So prior to co we were meeting twice a week at the global mall on Tuesday evenings and on Sunday mornings. We're still doing that now, but we're doing that virtually because we did not have any space acquired since then. Now, that's exactly what we intend to use this property for going forward.
>> Miss Carbon, I think you have Do you have a question?
>> Yeah, I think I've got most of it. Um, but last time I wrote down um you would have Bible studies and counseling and anything else >> you want to add that you would do on the site? Um, anything related to being a church. That's that's what we do. We're a church.
>> Okay.
>> U, two questions. One, your council person wants you once an uh, would you agree to no outside amplified music after 7 p.m. and that you would limit the occupancy to 300 people? Is that a problem?
>> I do have a question about that if it's okay with the board. So, as it stands, any other neighbor is able to host anything at their property past 700 p.m.
during the summer. Mr. Hargus, if you don't mind, if you can please show the outdoor movie um shot from the Global Mall. One of the things that we do, as we said, we are creative. We try to take things outside the four walls of a traditional church. So, at the Global Mall, for instance, we used to host outdoor movie nights. We'll put a big screen out there and have folks watch a Christian movie. 700 p.m. is not dark enough. So, I think that would be a hardship. So, I would ask if the board is able to agree to something much later.
>> So, are is the issue the amplified music after 7 p.m. or the 300 people? the amplified music after 7:00 p.m. If we can make that a little later because during the summer it's really bright at 7:00 p.m. And >> so you are you okay with limiting the occupancy to 300 people?
>> I am. Yes.
>> Okay. So it's just the 700 p.m.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, okay. Um yeah, we can put any kind of condition we want. I just wanted to understand what your position was on that. So, and then the other question I have is the hospitality house which is you're that's what you're that's the existing structure that's there and you um you say it will be used as a retreat center, wedding party, guest house. When you say wedding party, guest house, do you mean weddings of people that are associated with the congregation?
Because the issue we had last time was it was you were it looked like you there was this was being operated as a venue for >> Right. So tell me about what when you say wedding party, guest house for the hospitality house, what what >> that has been completely taken out of the application. We're just asking for the ability to be able to use the barn and the land for our services.
>> Okay. All right. I appreciate that.
Thank you. Uh >> how many can fit in the barn? Right now, assistance is 1500 square f feet, but we are already speaking to a contractor so we can expand that and hopefully minimize some of the outdoor music noise and solve that problem. So, we're doing the best we can to be able to be good neighbors. It's just unfortunate that we assumed neighborhood activity was permitted and went along with that.
>> Mr. to answer your lot. Did you have a question?
>> Yeah, I mean I you know I um they're just between the website and Facebook posts and Google reviews and everything else online. I I would say it's a 10 to one on event venue advertisements over ministries. Um, and I'm not saying I, you know, disbelieve the applicant, but, uh, you know, there's all types of things on there for wedding related venues, and I, um, I don't know, it's it's trying to wrap my head around it. Um, what was the name? Um, >> Inkville. I N K U M.
>> Well, let me ask this. Will will there be weddings at this location? If we have church members that have a wedding, there will be a wedding over there. If we have >> church, it's church members only.
Correct. It will not be advertised to the public as a >> isn't available.
>> No, sir. And if you look at the other properties that are on Brick Church Pike, they were being advertised for weddings, which is why we included that.
But once Mr. Hagus made a determination that there were two primary uses. He seen the religious and then he seen the venue. We said take it out. That that was never our intent. We just assumed what was being done was permitted and that's why we went we added that but please take that out.
>> How many weddings do you anticipate having there each year for your congregants?
I mean, people are growing up right now.
In the last three years, I would say we've had three to four and we rented other churches to get it done because we didn't have space. That was >> You've had three or four for for congregants?
>> Okay. And do you expect that'll probably be about the average you'll have going forward? Three or four weddings a year for members of your >> It's possible. These younger folks are growing as you can tell behind me. So, I can't make promises, but that could be the average. Yes.
>> Okay. I'm I know you can't guarantee it.
I'm just asking for an estimate. You wouldn't expect it to grow to anything like 10 or 15 a year, >> would you?
>> Probably not.
>> Okay. All right. Mr. Ransom. And for the members, uh, Miss Inkham had had brought to my our attention some some other facilities she mentioned in the uh uh in her emails to us are just for everyone's purpose. Our office is looking into those to see whether they have the proper permits and permissions to be there. So, >> okay, we may be seeing them next, I guess. Maybe >> that's a lot.
>> And additionally, I had also sent you a flyer. We have a farm down the street that hosts the festival, and that flyers is charging $8 per person coming in, and it's till 8:00 p.m.
There's there's so much happening. So, I personally think 7:00 p.m. is just a little early if we think about >> the summertime and young people and just having church activities.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. And you've got some time left on rebuttal, too. So, all right.
>> And we bought a decibel reader, so we actually have been monitoring. That's why you have those screenshots there to make sure it's within city ordinance.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you.
Okay. Opposition.
Okay. The board will now hear from those parties opposed the case. Just a reminder, you all have five minutes to present your case. That is five minutes in total, not per speaker. So, if you have multiple folks that wish to speak, please divide your time accordingly. And again, I'll start the clock after introductions, but once you begin your questions and I'll pause it for any questions or answers there, too.
You can you can divide it up however you want to.
>> Okay.
>> So, but be sure and turn your green light on and and u tell us your name and your address. We need that for the record.
>> Amanda Vall 3920 Brick Church Pike.
>> Okay. Mike Ripto 3564 brick church pipe.
>> All right.
>> Uh Karen Ripto 3570 Bridge Church Pike.
>> John Gupton Baker Donaldson. Sorry.
>> I just quickly wanted to say that um the problem here is the amplified music. Um, and I'm not sure what exactly the code states, but we don't have neighbors that have amplified music during the day um or after 7 o'clock. So, I don't understand why that would be acceptable. Um, because we do like to enjoy our properties during the day and have quiet Saturday and Sunday on the weekends. And this music is very, very loud. Um, still been going on. And as far as not being an event center right now, I just pulled up on my phone on Google Maps and it has all if you look under the services, it mentions wedding several times. It mentions baby shower, bar mitzvah, parties, catering, D, MC and DJ. So, um I >> you know I mean Yeah. And but sometimes I know this from things I've done sometimes Google these things up for a long time after they're initially out there. Is there is there any indication this is >> I don't know that but if somebody looks it up today they're going to see that this place is advertising as an event center and that's really what it is.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> I'm Karen Dpau. Uh they just had a party, a birthday party there on April the 26th and had probably about five or six hundred cars >> in the music. It was a birthday party and I have pictures of all of it. And then uh I'm the owner of the Pearl Retreat and it's my personal home and I only have it on Airbnb for when I'm out of town or I want to rent to someone or my family comes in. It's not for any commercial use. And I've only I have like one person that's going to rent it so far. And it was my mother's house.
And we that's just what we named it because it the Pearl is my mother's nickname.
Uh what I would say is I think it would be helpful if we just have some clear restrictions about what can be done because there seems to be a back and forth about whether there's any commercial use or not.
I've got some some here that I could leave with uh Joey and and >> are y'all okay with the 300 occupancy limit or >> I think that's kind of high. You're talking about if there's 300 people there, you're talking up to a maximum of 75 cars coming down here. This is small two-lane road in front of these houses that you and lots. You're going to back people up a long time uh with that many cars coming. And particularly if if most of the cars only have one person, you've got 300 cars coming down the road.
the five or 600 cars. How did you Were you able to just look out and see where they were parked to count them?
>> Well, we took pictures of it and we just tried to guesstimate, you know, it was like four and five rows of them and they had security down there that was and uh and this is supposed to be why this is being looked at. So, I guess our biggest fear is if they're going to do it while this is under conversation. You know, you give them 300, it's going to be 3,000. You know, it's it's I mean, they're not being a good neighbor while we're even discussing this.
>> What What is the acreage of the site?
Does anybody know, Mr. Harris? You know, the >> 12 or 13 acres?
>> 14.
>> But everybody has I mean, we have 29 acres. 13 >> 13 40 acres.
>> These are larger tracks.
>> These everybody has 20 or more in that >> and it's been that way for years.
>> Yeah. And when you have the amplified music, it just carries everywhere. I mean, you can It's so loud.
>> Uh my name is Mvin Luke. I live at 30 Hill and Glade Drive. Uh my wife would be here but she had hip replacement surgery Monday. Uh she has we have Jennifer O'Neal Ministries has a property our property at 30 Hill and Glade Drive. We've done equin therapy there for many years working with Fort Campbell Operation Standown the VA.
They've sent suicidal people to us from their camps. We have saved lives and that's what we do there. We don't have outdoor parties, sound systems, anything. What I would like to address with with this mainly is you say turn your phones off when we start this meeting because phones can be disruptive.
Uh if you're ever in your car and somebody with a boom box drives up next to you, you probably like me can't wait till they drive on or I drive on. These people have done outdoor sound systems that shakes windows. Boom boom boom. and everyone's houses around and can be heard everywhere. It's very disruptive to what we're trying to do. People who are PTSD are hearing all this music and stuff and it's that's my point mainly the sound system that comes from all the events they've been having over there which have been more than just a couple.
So that's all I'd like to say.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Any questions from the board?
No, I just want to make sure they don't have any commercial.
>> You've got a minute and 11 seconds left.
So, >> yeah, I just say uh when I give Joey the the list, it's it's basically focused on no commercial activity at all. And some of this stuff could very easily slip into commercial.
Very easily.
>> And this is a list of conditions that you've come up with.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. I think we need to see those.
>> Yeah. I can I make one more for you.
>> When did you give those to Mr. Hargus?
>> I haven't.
>> Oh, okay.
>> I'm going to give them to him after after we >> Well, probably you need to give them to him now if you can, Mr. That way we can >> Just to be clear, everything we do at Hill and Glade is free. We don't charge military first responders or their families for anything we do. We work off donation.
So, we're not trying to do a commercial venture at all.
Does anybody have any questions about that? Can you pass that back, Miss Johnson? Because I'd like I'd like to see it again, too.
Okay. I don't have any questions about it. Any any others? Okay. All right.
Well, thank you all very much.
Applicant has some time left. I believe >> Mr. Chair, if I just may note something >> before the applicant speaks. Um, I've been going through the records and I don't see anywhere where there was a formal request to amend the original application. Um, as was mentioned, it may have been through staff. I'm just don't see it in the documents >> to to amend it to remove the request for that it be used as a wedding venue.
>> Yes, that is correct. I do not say whether that is was ever formally requested.
>> Okay.
Well, I mean I guess we could take care of that if we Okay.
>> And that's just why I wanted to point out >> Yeah. Okay. Well, appreciate that. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, you have some time left. 3 minutes and 35 seconds.
>> Thank you.
>> Can I shoot?
Um, I did want to state that as far as amending once Mr. Haggis made the determination and sent it to us, we responded that we would not be appealing. So, we assumed that was the amendment and we also indicated based on that um we contacted codes which had the original application via. So it is updated on e- permits to reflect what we are currently discussing.
Secondly, on at the end of April, we had a party for one of our members who is stage four cancer. She has been given weeks to live and she clearly said, "I don't want you guys to have a funeral memorial for me. I want to get my flowers while I'm yet alive." And so that's what we did. And if there are any neighbors that should be here kicking and screaming, it should be the two immediate neighbors to us because the one to the right, the TID walls, they are directly in front of the parking.
The one to the left should be directly connected to the noise. None of them have showed up here opposing. None of them have sent anything. In fact, the Tidwell clearly called council member Gamble and said, "I have no issues at all. Everything is so organized and they have not been a problem to me and I support them. I also want to indicate that I emailed codes before we had our personal wedding anniversary and I asked is there any permit we need from you in order to be able to have our wedding anniversary and our birthday party and they responded to me and stated no Mr. Harus has that information. I reconfirmed with coat yesterday. If any neighbor wants to host Easter egg hunt, festival, picnic, anything, do they need a permit, a special permit from you? Is there a limit on the number of people that can be there? Is there a set time?
They responded and said, "No, you may just need to work with the fire department to see what that looks like.
part of our application that we are properly going through unlike our neighbors that have been functioning without any codes or busy exception. We are going through working with with an architect. Part of it is fire safety. So they are going to make sure codes will make sure that they review parking that we have ample parking to support any ministry activities. As far as the traffic, we just added 488 homes right behind the repositos. At an average of two per home, that's a thousand people during rush hour. We are a church. We're not going to be there. We work. We We won't be there during rush hour. So, I think we're creating something that doesn't actually exist >> and I'll save my time.
>> Uh, thank you.
>> Well, this you >> you need to use it now or you don't get another chance. So, what I mean you you you're assuring us there's not going to be any commercial activity. No, absolutely not. No, you you won't be intaking any income from and and you're or you're not going to what do you do about members of the church that for example want to have a wedding there? Do you charge them?
>> We will have to to cover some of the expenses. In the past, we've rented the churches that I can I think I already provided Mr. Hargas with verifiable churches that we have rented to have events for our members in. So I think that's typical. the congregants would just be responsible for the expenses, right? Okay. There's no profit built in for for the church itself or anybody else.
>> No. And Hillinglay said they don't charge I've sent screenshots, but their website clearly says we charge $500 per couple of this much. And he clearly sent a text message. I'm part of the leadership in the neighborhood. And we addressed this. And he said we charge to support our nonprofit activities. And I said that's typical. I'm a CPA.
Nonprofits are sustainable by finding ways to create income. So, no one's faulting you for doing that. Just don't pretend that you don't and call it commercial.
>> And quickly also, I just >> can you state your name and address, please?
>> Christopher, uh last name I N Kum. Um the two people that came here that didn't even want any form of activities.
34 3570 is this address. Basically they are in fact doing exactly what >> they're claiming.
>> They are claiming they don't want >> it says special events on the Airbnb.
Airbnbs are not allowed to do special event.
>> All of it is listed right here. These are the same people who came inside here.
>> Okay.
>> What about the There have been complaints about the loud music. Do you have any limits right now on >> Yes.
>> What do you What do you tell people when you that that either DJs or bands that show up or people that show up with their own whatever devices to play music? What What are you telling them about the >> We we actually have the sound ourselves.
Nobody's bringing their sound. These are our events that we hosted and we alluded to MV when he first came to our community meeting that we did not realize where the location of his property was. So we thought it was Woods and realized he's there. So since then we have just adjusted anything that we do personally and bought the meter to make sure that we're actually being good neighbors and we're not exceeding anything that the city limit says.
>> So what are the limits? Do you have a decibel level limit or do you I mean how do you determine what's too loud and what's not too loud?
>> Oh, well the CD says 85. I took walked around when we was we cranked up music just so we can test it out. I took off the windbreaker from it so it can be very sensitive and it never went above 70.
>> Yeah. And I actually have a video where I went and put my phone on my window to see if my window will rattle. My window is on my property. If it's not rattling, your window cannot be rattling in your house. And please, we're dealing with 14 acres here. And so, I mean, think about it. Neighbors are not even close. And the ones that are close, none of them are even complaining.
And so, the complaint is just I mean, it's just not making any sense. Yeah.
Any questions?
Okay, thank you very much. We'll close the public hearing and discuss.
>> All right, thank you.
>> I mean, this is a a tough one for me to the list of conditions kind of are at odds with what religious activities do.
You know, most churches I don't have a list in front of me, but most churches uh will operate and have events and weddings. Um, you know, we'll we'll have large gatherings and we'll have weddings and events of wide variety as they're allowed to do. Um, I mean, my church hosts weddings and charges for it. And I think that's pretty normal. So, where do you draw the line of saying you can have a religious institution, but you can't do X, Y, or Z? I think that's the hard that's the hard thing for me. And then, you know, the again I I'm seeing a lot more of this being advertised as a um as an events venue more so than a religious institution from all the documents that I've seen and everything that's available online. So, it's not really giving me the the warm and fuzzies either. Um you know, INDOT takes condition. I mean, obviously they have to go through their pro process, but um I'm just having a tough time with it.
I think I need clarification on the application again because currently it stands is uh there is no construction associated with this permit application.
owner is looking to change occupancy and provide activity consist with zoning alone with uh exception. And then it says activity type religious retreat center offering community activities including counseling, nature trails, service animals and music and festivals.
So I've tried to understand the use because religious institution has uh allowed to have accessory use but seems like this application is not clearly establishing the religious institutional use but more still tied with recre recreational center type activity with festivals. So to me this application and also the things I questioned still associated with how the house will be uh used. I understand applicant intent but the application currently it stands uh does not associate with uh intent of the applicant. So that's what I'm having hard time gauging uh this application with a correct uh application type. So I mean the way I understand what you're saying is instead of it it being a primary church religious institution with kind of ancillary activities this is operating primary primarily under the ancillary activities and then as a church as an aside. Yeah.
>> Mr. Johnson, if I can clarify that the conversations that remember I talked about in the the beginning, I made a determination that there were indeed two two requests in her initial con confirmation. One for the church use religious institution. The other I classified as uh the wedding retreat, the the the retreat center. Those are not uses. Those fall under use not permitted in that zone district. So that that was my I wrote a second letter to her in the meantime. So that the request before you is is strictly for the religious institution use. U Mr. Ransom is right. Churches and I said this in the first hearing. Churches have weddings for their parishioners or whomever. I mean our our church has done it. Yours probably has too. Um all I can put in front of this board is what the zoning allows for. And she did point out um in the in the opposition mentioned, you know, the horse stuff that from what I can tell, and we're looking into it, I'm not sure those uses are permitted either. So, our office will be looking into those >> um whether they're allowable uses in the zoning code, but to her testimony is she added a lot of things to her initial request, seeing what others were doing and trying to incorporate those into her request, too, because if they're doing it, then she should be. But now that we've had clarification that those uses aren't permitted, our office is investigating the other two as as through our normal processes of an of a request for service case. Um >> the special exception being requested is just religious.
>> It is just religious institutions.
>> That's it.
>> All it can be. Yes.
>> And then the I mean the issue does become with religious use. There's it's not just showing up Sunday for an hour, >> right?
>> Church. I mean there are every you know all churches I know of have weddings and gettogethers and events >> counseling and I mean you've seen churches divorce care and you know all the other things associated with it. I I would never treat those as separate principal uses of a property. The use of of church it allows other ancillary uses that quite frankly I'm not going to get into the church's day-to-day operations.
I'm just not going to expose Metro to that sort of liability of getting into their operations. Now, if they they go beyond kind of the scope of, you know, when those ancillary uses become more of a primary use than than the religious institution, now we can have some discussions about what's going on. But >> I mean, this is this is a essentially a religious use within a residentially zoned area, whereas there are other churches that are not in the same situation. And so and we have we have the ability to put conditions on it and I think >> y >> that's appropriate. I think the conditions the council person asked for reasonable. I mean no no amp inflight music after 7 p.m. the applicant agrees to three you know limit the occupancy to 300. I think we did it with the last case. I think especially when there's a lot of concern from the neighbors, a good approach can be as we did in the last case to to allow a special exception for a certain period of time.
that puts u the it incentivizes the applicant to uh make sure that everybody's trying to live in harmony because the applicant knows that they need to come back up >> and and have the the uh special exception renewed.
Um, >> but I mean do you feel like this, you know, kind of meets with the compatibility of like the surrounding properties and neighborhood character?
You know, we've seen churches and neighborhoods that are more dense and that are already there that are looking for expansion and use, but I that's what I'm this feels very foreign in this location uh to me. Um, yeah. I mean, I think especially some of the stuff that I would say would be what I would call non, you know, noncore church stuff like the festivals with music going, you know, I mean, the applicant wanted to, you know, have music amplified music past 7 p.m., which tells me a lot. That tells me that, you know, there's that's important to them that and that's not what I would call typical. I mean, I I live in a place with a a a venue that's maybe a quarter half mile from me, and they have weddings and events all the time, and it's amazing how much the sound travels. I could sit out front and hear the music clearly, and it's not I'm not close enough to where it's annoying, but it's just impressive how loud amplified music could travel outside. Um well I mean and I will say that there has been a with you know every case is different with respect to the last case where we had a 2-year renewal. I mean that was a situation in which we had something operating for 35 years with only one complaint and you know whereas there I think there's there's been more of a track record here of use that is has been objectionable to neighbors and was outside the scope of the religious use and I mean with respect to other people that are doing as I said they may be before us too you know I mean I don't think it it never it's never justification to me that well other people in the neighborhood are doing it too. That may be true and they may have become face the consequences of that.
But so >> I have uh just one clarification or want to ask with our joining administrator.
If this were like a regular regular uh brick and mortar regular religious institution application and so asking for up to 300 seat uh would this meet street standard >> yes ma'am >> so that's what I was figuring out with that although this is a very unique religious institution so if we treat as just strict religious use application. I think uh this uh application will meet with the special exception requirement with the street standards and uh size of the lot. So with that uh I think we reasonable condition will be how long with a special exception limit will be appropriate because uniquely this was uh brought to us because of the neighboring complaint. So it was noise or whatever the case might be that's uh associated with this uh application. So to uh balance the neighbors complaint and as well as uh meet the cause requirement I think we accept the special exception with limit. So each uh neighbors can monitor and come up with the best solution and also council ladies condition is reasonable because with that location and uh Mr. Ransom said uh sound drives. So 700 p.m. I understand applicant may want to extend that uh amplify music later than 700 p.m. but 700 p.m. in that specific location considering uh that rural setting uh I think it's reasonable. So with that condition and appropriate special exception I am leaning towards uh accepting that. So that's meets our requirement.
>> What is the decibel level that's allowed by codes? I didn't catch it earlier.
>> I think it's 8.5. In just a minute, I'll uh the noise ordinance is actually in a couple different locations in the code, not in the zoning code. It's in chapter nine. Um, which is let's see here.
Just reading from um chapter 9.20.10 of the code. It said except for properties lying in the downtown district and property zone CF, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate uh number one operate or allow the operation of any sound amplification equipment so as to create sounds that are plainly audible from the boundary line of the nearest residentially occupied property.
Um, and it goes on to say, "For multif family structures, including apartments and condominiums, um, shall be unlawful to operate any sound or amplification equipment as to create sounds that are plainly audible from any point within the interior of another residential unit. Um, this subsection shall not apply to special events, mass gatherings, or other permitted activities by the Metropolitan Government or its boards or commissions. that is y'all. So, this section does not apply to uses that in my reading, it doesn't apply to things approved by Metro government boards or commissions.
Um, so if we approve it, there's no regulations on the sound levels.
I I'll leave that question to our lawyer, but that's how I read it. Um, >> I agree with Mr. Argus.
>> So, there's no there's no regulation on the sound because of the zoning.
>> There's none built into the zoning code in chapter 17.
>> What about this the regular code? This is this comes from the regular code.
This is the section I'm reading is 9.20 >> and it it does provide for a decimal level.
>> It No, it just says that it's unlawful to operate sound that is plainly audible is the at at a nearest residential property, but it exempts this subsection. It says this subsection shall not apply to special event mass gatherings or other permitted activities by the metropolitan government or its boards and commissions.
But that that just accepts metro from it. Correct.
>> Not not >> I don't No, I don't read it that way. I I read it that it again. I'll read it again. This subsection shall not apply to special events, mass gatherings, or other permitted activity by the metropolitan government. So that would be your riverfest and your, you know, those types of things.
>> But by the Metropolitan Government, isn't that the key modifier there?
>> But but the rest of the Senate says or its boards and commissions. So this board is a board of the metropolitan government which would authorize activities to occur. So I I would read that that >> I would I would need to read him more closely but um I I actually agree with the chair's reading of this that this is specific uh festivals permits done under you know issued by metro departments for met gatherings.
I was just trying to find a reasonable decibel level to maybe put in a condition that if the neighbors um heard recorded that decibel level on their property, it would be appropriate that the volume be turned down on this property. That's what I was trying to figure out.
>> I mean, reading again too, Justin, that Yeah, I follow what you're saying.
>> So, for but for us, that section all the only it says plainly audible. doesn't give me a numeric number to 60 dB, 70 decel, I don't know.
>> So, if it's plainly audible to the neighbors, um then they have a reason to complain to Metro Hub Hub Nashville or um is that what it's called?
>> They came.
>> Okay.
So, with respect to the 300 limit, I mean, I I think it's reasonable to expect if you live near a church or an event center, even a neighbor every once in a while, you're going to have a large event, you know, a wedding or whatever.
But to me, the 300 is, if you're going to have events with 300 people every week or every other week, that's, you know, that's problematic. I think I think you should have to expect that there'll be every once in a while you're you have a member of the congregation that's going to get married and there's going to be a lot of people there. Um and but I don't know how the I mean there's no way for us I think to effectively put a conditional on that but I would say that to the the applicant should be aware that if we approve it and they need to come back for reapproval and whatever period of time that that's something that um if we allow that capacity level it's my thinking is I'm I'm not expecting it's going to be two events every week with up to 300 people because I think that would be too much for a residential ial area way too much.
So any any thoughts on I I think I drive that we agree there ought to be some kind of time limit on the special exception. Uh any thoughts on what that time period ought to be?
>> A lot of approvals are two years.
It's not unheard of. Yeah, we've done two years, we've done longer, we've done one years.
>> I think two year will be reasonable with a stipulation.
You know, if there was complaint from neighbor, so they might uh present the case to the board for reconsideration even within two years if it's accessible.
>> Yeah. Let me see if we can do that. Um I are we can we put a condition that it's uh there's a required renewal in two years unless a complaint is made to the board.
I I don't know that we've never done it that I know of. I don't know that we can or can do it, but >> I I think that'd be a conditional approval. Um, I I I think that adds a lot of complexity and I'm not sure it'd be easily translated through the zoning administrator may have other guidance.
>> I don't I don't think we've ever >> No, >> I don't mean we can't do it. I'm just trying to get >> I don't think you ever have. I mean, the board does have an Rose show cause hearing if if sufficient evidence comes to the Coast Department's attention that they're in violation of their terms of their agreement.
>> Um, >> so I guess we could make a condition that it's two years unless a show cause hearing is initiated.
Well, usually the process for show calls is, you know, someone brings a complaint to us and and we would review it and say, "Yeah, I think this rises to the level the board needs to make a decision." Uh, or we dismiss it and go, "Yeah, there's just, you know, >> so a condition would be that if a complaint is brought to the codes department and the codes department determines that needs to be brought before the board, we can >> review the the special exception at that time."
>> Right? that can happen if if even if I if I made a determination it it wasn't enough to bring the board they can appeal me back to this board over that determination. So the code does does uh provide the ability of people who disagree with me or my determinations they can appeal it here.
So >> okay well I'll try to make a motion and wrap it and so I would move that we approve the special exception for for a two-year period. Um, we limit the that the applicant cannot have amplified music after 7 p.m. Uh, the occupancy of any event is limited to 300 people. That if a complaint is made to the codes department within the two years and the code codes department determines um that uh the board this board ought to be notified of that and we are notified of it. we can review prior to the two-year period whether the special exception should continue.
Is that sufficient?
>> I need to look at the specific special exception lang. It is it is correct but um believe the zoning administrator is representing that the show cause could always occur. So I'm not just not sure it's a necessary condition.
>> And would that give approval for these 170 parking spots and >> all the other stuff? Well, >> this application.
>> Yeah. No, this is this is just one step in it. Miss Inkham and them do have to get a permit and and part of that permit review is building fire code review, showing us a site plan that complies with the parking requirements. Uh this this is not a this is not an approval. I just want to make sure the applicants understand. This is not an approval where they go out tomorrow and start doing it. I mean, it they've got to get the proper permits to >> Okay. So, I think that motion's probably sufficient because what I think I'm hearing is that even if I didn't we didn't put that condition on it if someone comes in and files a complaint with codes, it's going to get before us. And at that time we can say, "Okay, we've given you two years, but we want to rehear this because we have real concerns about how it's being operated." So it sounds like the motion covers it, but even if I didn't have that condition, the neighbors have the right to come back before two years and and bring it to our attention, at which time we can review it again. So that gives the applicant an incentive to make sure that you're living in harmony with the neighbors. And so okay, that's the motion.
>> And maybe you mentioned this, but you know, they haven't amended the application. How can we tighten >> Well, that up. Yeah, let me make >> even though even though you don't have a physical application, it is on the it is on their initial master permit that is just a religious institution along with the um the BZA in the system it does show just a religious institution only. It doesn't have anything showing in there as a retreat, a horse form or anything that they previously their paper copy showed in the beginning.
>> Okay.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Okay. Motion a second. Any further discussion? I don't I think I understand that if um Metro codes reads that if the noise is plainly audible on someone's property, they have the right to file the complaint. So, I don't think we have to put that as a condition.
I think that's I think we're okay as is.
>> I think we are too. I think also because they have a right to file something with directly with codes that can be brought to our attention and that would probably cover that. I'll have to say there was a restaurant near my home that had a wedding. It wasn't allowed. They knew they weren't allowed to have a wedding.
The music was so loud I couldn't occupy my property during that time. So, I'm very sensitive to the noise. So, I hope you understand.
>> Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion? Any opposed? Are you in favor? Okay. So, that passes.
>> No, no, you're opposed.
>> You're opposed. Okay.
>> I'm opposed. I just I'm not convinced that they've established I I'm just not convinced at this point.
>> Okay.
>> So I So >> it's already put it.
>> Okay. According to your rules, this motion is tied on votes. Um >> I'm usually >> at our next meeting, which will be the June the 4th. Uh this this case will stay on our agenda. Miss Davis, who's not present, can watch the testimony that happened all the way up till today and become eligible and then place a vote. Uh, Sinkum, if you fail to get four votes uh within 30 days of this hearing, so I'm just double checking. We will have two meetings in in 30 days, uh, your application will be deemed denied by operation of law for failure to get four affirmative votes. So, the vote currently stands as tied. Motion to approve, three votes for, one against, and uh with Miss Davis pending her vote.
So, we'll be back here on um June the 4th. Public hearing is closed. No additional testimony or evidence may be submitted in this case. The record is closed. Um and so we'll see you guys back here on the 4th, just at the at the beginning of that hearing. Uh with that case 38 is uh concluded today on a tie vote of 3 to one.
>> And before we next move to the next case, Mr. Arus, we can take a 5m minute break.
>> Okay. The board stand in recess.
>> Thank you.
Okay. The uh the next case on the board's agenda will be case 2026-53 7 Hills Clubs Incorporated, the appellent owner of the property at 1317 Hilders Drive, requesting a special exception to uh no, let me rephrase that. They are requesting a special exception to amend the conditions placed upon tennis club in the RS40 district.
Uh this club is in existence. Um this was deferred at the applicant's request at the April 16th meeting. No public hearing has occurred and the good news is uh all six members present can participate in this case. So Mr. Grian and Miss Yoder get to do something other than just watch. So all right u just to let me give you the procedural kind of what happened. All right. So, if you'll recall, and I've got to remind all parties, there was prior appeal by the neighbors. Mr. Holland appealed my determination regarding conditions placed upon this appeal originally. That case is not in front of you. So, I'm just I'm only giving it for procedural facts. It's not a basis of this. It it's the genesis of this appeal, but it's not it's not what this appeal is about. Mr. Halman prevailed in that appeal, and that appeal uh has since been um filed a red assert in Chancery Court. But what came up in that hearing was a suggestion by a board member like telling Seven Hills, why don't you just come back to the board and ask to amend your conditions? And that's what's in front of you today is a request to amend their conditions of approval for their use. So just separate all the all the other item A kind of stuff for members that would have heard it. Our two members that are new would not have heard that case and have no idea what I'm talking about. So but uh but I just put it out there for the other members. Please keep be sure to keep this case independent in your minds from any prior case that was heard by this board. Uh I would ask both parties council try not to refer back to the item A appeal because I had two members that have no idea what you're talking about. So all right. So this case um again this is an amendment of conditions of approval placed upon this um facility.
I don't know why that's seem to have lost my connection to my There we go.
Uh conditions placed upon the um use of the case. This was the site plan submitted by the applicant of the current layout of the property.
Aerial photograph more recently. parking area is located on the north part of the parcel in the eastern northeastern corner of the property. Um there's a bubble which covers tennis courts in this location. Uh swimming pool which you see there and I think uh this uh building located on the site in between um for reference Hilders is running east to west along the northern part of this boundary. Um here I've got in Mountain View is the is the street running along the south. This particular um map is provided to you from the 1961 case which at that time was heard by the Davidson County Board of Zoning Appeals.
This would have predated Metro's um merger in ' 64 to county and city government. This was the site plan approved at that hearing. And that's the end of my presentation. Um, both appellants in opposition are present. They do have council present.
Um, so I know we'll have opposition.
We'll have 10 minutes to present your testimony. Both sides have submitted a PowerPoint presentation to me. I'm queuing those up now. Um, and I will Yeah, if you don't mind, I appreciate that.
I will get those.
Let's see what happens when I try to run to. There we go. Okay.
>> All right, sir. If you would please uh state your name and um your address for the board and begin presentation.
>> Adam Le Fever, 101 Lee Avenue. And um before we start, J, I want to correct something that's on the record. There's a line in the brief that says a maximum of 512 and that should be an average of 512. So I wanted to correct the record before >> in your letter, Mr. Lever.
>> In the letter, yes.
>> Okay. So tell me what page is so I can >> uh not sure exactly what page in the letter >> number of members or is that what >> No, it's a reference to the maximum number of members that enter on a day.
And I said maximum of 512 and it's an average of 512 during June.
So I didn't I wanted to correct that. Um >> so so instead of saying total you're you want to say average >> average. Yes.
>> Okay. All right. I found it. Thank you.
>> On average.
>> Okay. Little background. I know Mr. Harus went over some but seven Hills is a nonprofit swim and tennis club. It's been operating since 1960. Continuously sits on a little more than nine acres.
Uh and it operates under a conditional use permit from 1960. Our amendment is seeking an amendment to four of the conditions that were imposed in 1960. So the 1960 permit was approved by the Davidson County B uh BCA before this area was annexed by the city. It was amended in 1961 and then 1977 was before the BCA for some tennis court light additions. Has been through multiple renovations, expansions in its time period and in 2002 222 went through a massive renovation. got the certificate of occupancy and was finished with that.
So, the previous hearing in February, as Mr. Harus said, raised questions regarding the language and the conditional use permit. It was old. Um, it was suggested, as Mr. Hargus said, that Seven Hills appear and request an amendment to the permit. We had a neighborhood meeting after some concerns of the neighbors. We tweaked our applications a little bit in response to the neighbors concerns. This is the conditional permit from 1960. It has eight enumerated conditions and then two more at the bottom were imposed.
We're seeking an amendment to the parking space requirements that it said 162 on the original. We're amending or requesting an amendment to um available parking on site or at another location of 162 spaces. We have a contractual relationship with St. Bartholomew's Church for additional 85 spaces from what is on site. Um, so we have 105 plan spaces on site plus 85. So we have a total of 190 spaces available.
>> Let me stop you there. So you have 190 available now.
>> 190 if you count the 85 that we have um a contract a lease contract with St. Bartholomew for >> Okay.
>> So 105 is and does that I know you you said in your uh letter you are waiting on storm water for approval some others.
Does that 190 available include what you anticipate Stormwater will approve?
>> It does. Uh what Stormwater is reviewing our initial 32 spaces? So that would put on site 105 spaces. Then at St. Bartholomew use an additional 85. So 190 total. The only time the overflow was used last year was on swim meet days. We have three typically three swim meets where other clubs come in. Um, so you have our swimmers, then you have other club swimmers on the same day. So that parking was used and um, shuttles were used to get people to and from that parking lot.
>> And I know you're in the middle of your presentation, but uh, contractual relationship um, is that in perpetuity for a year?
>> It it's a lease in perpetuity unless it's terminated by St. Bartholomew. And that's why we added the or another location in the event that for some reason it was terminated, we'd be have we'd have to get um parking spaces from another location in the area, multiple churches around.
>> Okay.
>> So, what's the status of the is of the storm water application for the 32 spaces? Is it >> It sitting and has been sitting for a while waiting on comment back. I think we're going through the whole process of is it going to be pavers? how many spots are going to be there. It doesn't appear they have an issue with the 32. It's just they're looking at the possible runoff and what the mitigation is that we have to do for them.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, we're uh requesting that the condition for 500 families be increased to up to 600 families.
uh requesting that condition six that says no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or sold or consumed on the premises that it just is revised to say no alcoholic beverages are sold. That condition number two which required a private hedge around two sides be amended just to read that the property be properly landscaped and maintained in an orderly manner. I have pictures of what it looked like before the freeze in what I think was 2022 that almost killed everything on site and that's what 7 Hills wants to go back to. So the original plan contemplated parking in multiple locations off Mountain View which is up on a hill and off Hildrth which is down and the topography limited the practicality of that.
This was the original which was scrapped basically in 1961 in place of the following slide which has a 100 parking spaces on the left you'll see and 75 on the right. That's what planning approved that uh parking is a physical impossibility. It's almost like somebody never measured it.
That's the current parking. You'll see the parking's in the same location as planning approved but that only allows for 46 on the left, not 100, and 30 on the right, not 75.
We're building the additional parking lot where the arrow is.
That was the proposed plan to storm water.
>> That's the 32.
>> That's the 32.
>> Um so 105 on spite parking, additional overflow parking went over that. Uh it's only on swim meets and so 190 cars.
So we use parking attendance and Mr. Hargus if you can play the video on that. This is July 4th of 2025. July 4th is the busiest day of the year. And this is driving up Hilddrth.
On the right is the parking lot, the big one that has 46.
And the next one has 30 spots. And then at the end, you'll see our new parking lot. So that's the busiest day of the year. No parking signs, no cars on the street. So it was managed well last year. All right. Next, Mr. August.
Uh, Metro has installed no parking signs on one side of the street and also Seven Hills has tried to work with Metro for traffic mitigation. We requested a traffic study, but we're denied. So, we're working with them on possibly paying for some speed humps.
So, in 2024, I know safety on the street is one big concern of the neighbors.
That's 2024 is when we had our massive construction project and one whole parking lot was completely shut down.
The new parking lot wasn't in use.
People were parking in the grass. So we only actually had 46 paved spots available. So that's what it looked like in 2024 with no big parking lot and with no finished ancillary parking lot and with no 85 spaces at St. Bartholomew Muse. So the request seeks a recommend uh recognition of our current operational level which is approximately 600 families a little less. Um the average attendance during June of 2025 which is the busiest month was 512 people a day. So that's over a 10-hour period, you have 512 people coming and going.
Um, again, we want the alcohol sale or we're asking for an amendment to the alcohol provision.
This is the historical screening of 7 Hills. All of this was killed in 2022 with the freeze. Uh, things have been planted back, but that's what it looks like. This is the kind of uh landscaping 7 Hills wants, not just a hedge. They want the ability to do this type of thing again.
Uh, this is Sequoia Swim Club. This is our kind of sister club. It's 2 and a half miles away in Forest Hills.
It was approved in 1955. Same conditional use, 900 or 9 acres. It allowed 300 families, required 100 parking spots, and the rest of the conditions were nearly identical to Seven Hills. And it's actually referenced in the Seven Hills approval.
At the bottom, you'll see attached Seoia Club provisions that was incorporated into Seven Hills.
In 2004, Sequoia wanted to expand, so they applied to the Forest Hills and they were allowed to increase their membership from 300 families up to 625.
It's an increase of 130%. 7 Hills asking for a 30% increase. The parking requirement was changed from 100 required spaces to this formula, which at their maximum capacity equates to one space for every 6.58 family memberships.
Seven Hills current um on-site parking would be 6.19 memberships per parking spot. So less than Sequoia, not counting the 85 overflow spots.
This is a depiction of seven hills compared to St. Bartholomew's if you have that red line.
And again, um we asked because of the historical use legally non-conforming goals to bring the zoning in compliance with the current usage. Um, we've included the operational safeguards and parking controls and it's consistent with the prior SEOIA president. So, we're asking you to uh approve the amendments requested.
Um, there was talk about an amendment to uh eliminate Hildra street parking and 7 Hills doesn't have an issue with that.
Um, the catch however is how do you identify which cars are Seven Hills and which cars are not? These pictures were taken within the last 3 weeks. That's construction at a house across the street and those are cars that are parked on the street. So, our concern with having a complete amendment uh banning parking on Hildrith is that we would get blamed for other people parking on the street. Um an idea has been float around of all members have to have their license plate on file. So, if there's a complaint about a car on the street, it matches to the license plate.
But we would be open to an amendment like that barring or banning uh parking on Hildrith if we could come up with a way to identify the cars and I'll reserve the rest of my time.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh before you sit down, let me see. Do we have any questions for Mr. Lever?
Okay. Thank you. We'll hear from ready.
>> We're ready. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.
>> Jason Hollowman, uh 4210 Park Avenue attorney here in Nashville. on behalf of the affected neighbors. I have one of the affected neighbors, Laura Roast, with me and she's going to take the last couple of minutes, I think, to uh give a perspective of the neighborhood. Uh so with that, um next slide, please. We prepared a presentation. Um as this board will recall in February, uh there was an item A appeal uh interpreting the 1960 permit. This board upheld both the terms of the permit and the eight conditions of the permit. Next slide.
Um, next one. Uh, there is a copy of the permit. As uh you recall, it was broken down into introductory paragraph. Uh, part two was the approved plan which include the 500 member cap and findings of fact. And then the third part of the permit was the eight enumerated operating conditions. Next slide. Um, and that permit also included uh two uh uh site plans uh that were approved by the planning commission uh at that time.
As you can see, elements one through six uh that were the body of the permit are all identified in that site plan, including a total of 162 parking spaces that were required. Uh a private type hedge that was depicted and required and a 500 member family maximum for a parking ratio of 1:3 which was required.
Next slide. Uh the the 500 is actually depicted on the second page here, but you can see it says 500 member club. Um this is what was actually built as part of the 1960 permit. Uh we broken into what is compliant and non-compliant. The wreck facilities are as depicted, pool, bath house, tennis, etc. Uh the driveway and parking lot with approximately 90 spaces on North Hilddrth constructed. Uh what is not compliant is the other 88 spaces. The 162 as was discussed by the applicant uh is not on site even though required in the 1960 permit. The private hedge as was discussed was removed in 2023. Um that's a significant screening to the neighborhood and we are asking that it be replaced and the 500 cap um of course has not been met since 2021 when the membership rose above 500 and now stands at approximately 650 families. Next slide.
So when we look at next slide uh this is what was requested of you. I think there was a similar slide by the applicant. Uh they are not accommodating anything that was discussed in the February meeting from the neighborhood to address on street parking other than what we heard here at the very end. Um they are simply seeking to codify the violations of the permit that were addressed in February.
They want to uh uh not have the parking be on site but to uh be at St. Bart's Church. Um they want the membership level raised from 500 to 600 without addressing that parking uh deficiency that has been there and they want to allow on premise alcohol consumption which was expressly prohibited by the 1960 permit. Uh and they want to eliminate the uh landscape uh screening that was required by the 1960 permit and removed in 2021. Next slide. Um here is a summary of the parking situation right now. 1960 required 162 spots for a 500 member club. Uh currently on site is 77 with 650 uh proposed on site. That would include uh if storm water approves 105 still almost 60 below what was required for 500 members. Uh needed at a 1:3 ratio on site would be 195 members. Next slide.
This just demonstrates the growth of the club over time versus the static parking provided. Um, next slide. Um, here is the St. Barts parking agreement on the left. Uh, this is what was provided to this board in February. What I want to point out particularly is that this is really not a perpetual lease. It is a month-to-month lease. It can go away at any time. Um, it also only covers three to five parking days a year. The neighbors precipitously disagree that there is a parking problem only three days a year. We believe the actual overflow days are 30 to 40 days per year. So the term of this parking agreement does not does not address the parking problem. Next slide. Uh in addition um St. Barts is approximately one mile away um without shuttles. Um, obviously, uh, people with small children are not going to walk a mile, uh, particularly downtown Boulevard to get to the club. Um, next slide. And not only is it far away, uh, there is no pedestrian infrastructure, you can see there's limited shoulder, there's no sidewalk. Uh, and this is Time Boulevard, which is a pretty busy collector street. Next slide.
And this is what happens otherwise. We agree that the St. Barts uh was not utilized last year. That was said in the in the presentation, but that's not because there wasn't a parking problem.
It's because people didn't want to go to St. Barts because it was too far away, not accessible, and instead they parked on the street next.
>> So, these were taken those pictures were taken last year.
>> Believe last year.
>> Those are actually taken from their slides. So, I I'm not 100% sure.
>> I think Mr. Lef fever said those were taken in 2024 when there was some construction going on.
>> That is possible, but I think the neighbors would tell you that is a regular looking occurrence. That is not that is not a one-time event. Next slide.
>> Um here are uh the the privet you can see was removed uh in 2023. I understand there was a freeze but um there is a requirement that says be there. You can see um how it is a problem for visual buffer of the parking lot. Uh we do ask that that be restored as was required and as was uh maintained on the property until uh 2023. Next slide.
Um next slide. So there is both neighborhood and council opposition. Um, this is a letter from uh approximately I think I think it's over a dozen uh immediately affected neighbors, one of whom is here to speak. Um, but this is not a one or two individual as has been suggested by 7 Hills. There's widespread concern by many of the adjacent property owners particularly with regard uh to the to the traffic and parking overflow days which are numerous during the summer. The names on this letter there there are 52 letters of opposition our package are these additional names or these people that are appear that also appear within the 52 >> Jason let me so uh Mr. Chair Michael >> Lewis we need your name and >> address uh Mr. Chair Michael Lewis, 1307 Hilddrth Drive. I helped prepare this letter. So, there are going to be some duplicates, but this this represents approximately 19 households who join this. So, there could be duplicates.
>> Next slide.
>> And just also wanted to make you aware that Council Lady Sandy Yuing, who's been involved in the community meeting uh and interactions with both the club and uh and the neighbors, has submitted a letter of opposition to you as well.
where does she oppose it? She directly opposes it. Okay.
>> I I think very specifically opposed it.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Next slide. Um so I just want to point out that this is uh an amendment to their special exception permit which then requires that they meet the burden of proof under 1716150A.
Uh they have the burden to demonstrate that they've met all of those time, place, and manner conditions. Next slide. Which are all contained in 1716150.
Uh that includes a demonstration uh that the board finds that the uh area will be operated in a way that is not um in injurous to public health, safety or welfare. Um that it is compatible both in natural features and built environment uh with the adjacent area.
and I think very relevant to the parking concern under 1716150G that the applicant demonstrate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the area.
Um we would assert that that has not been met and so for that for that reason alone uh this application request should be denied. So with that I'd like to turn it over to Miss Roast um to give you a few comments from the perspective of the neighboring property owners.
>> Good afternoon. My name is My name is Laura Roast and I live at 4604 Villa Green. I currently serve as vice chair of the Metro Historical Commission. So I usually sit where you're sitting and I was previously a staff member both of the historical commission and the historic zoning commission. I come today speak to speak just as an individual neighbor, not as a commissioner. My parents were charter members of 7 Hills Club. I grew up going there. Later we bought my parents house and joined again as a family. We resigned as members about nine years ago as my children aged out so as to make room for younger families from the waiting list. For decades, the club and the surrounding neighborhood had a great relationship partly because of the big overlap of the two entities, but also because both parties wanted to be good neighbors.
Nothing has changed in that regard on the part of the neighborhood. We want the continued enjoyment of our property and the streets for ourselves and our neighbors. Despite the club never having the requisite number of parking spaces, for five decades, there were no parking issues for two reasons. One, so many of us were neighbors who walked to the club. And two, more importantly, the cap of 500 members was either not approached or certainly never breached. About 5 years ago, the club began adding members, first increasing the cap to 535 in 2021. At some point, the number jumped to 650. I'm vague on the timing because this increase is not in the bylaws, nor could the board chair tell us when this increase occurred when we asked for clarity at the April 2026 meeting held specifically to discuss the issue. In July of 24, I hosted a meeting at my house for neighborhood reps and the club board to discuss the parking situation that had by then become quite a dangerous problem. The club board members who attended so they would come up with a plan. Instead, the next night, the club hosted a swim meet that drew more cars than ever before to park on the neighborhood streets with no notice.
A week later, a larger community me was held with the board, and it became clear that no plan was being formulated. The then board members were instead quite defensive about not needing to take any action. It appears this is still the case. No actual proposal has been put forth, and you're being asked to rubber stamp. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you all very much. Uh we'll hear uh Mr. Lever, you've got some time up on rebuttal.
Oh, before before the opposition sits down, I apologize. Do do you have any questions? We may have questions for you all, Mr. Holland. Sorry.
>> You may not know the answer to this, but um you know, obviously the seems like the membership has increased quite a bit in a short amount of time. Uh when did do you know when neighbors started reaching out to the club and and expressing their concern about parking and safety? You turned your green light on there.
>> Yes, sir. It's on. This is Michael Lewis again, 1307 Hilddrid. So, I I'm a club member, have been since the early 80s as a family member. Um, the this really began in 2021 when the club raised its membership above uh 475 for the first time. Um, and it was really 2020, I believe it was 2024 was a year that really got bad. And that's when we we approached the club and said, "Look, you know," and I believe that was also around the time that the membership limit was increased to 650. And that's when we asked for uh a discussion about how to deal with the with the parking issue. And and unfortunately, that was that was not productive. Um they they told us they had a legal right to the club. The club said they had a legal right to continue using neighborhood streets to park and that was >> so it really became apparent when it's only recent once the membership increased.
>> Yes. There was never a and I can say this historically, you know, uh there was just there was never a problem because as as Laura stated, you had a lot of neighbors um who belonged there and and frankly I'll say one more thing.
Uh you had a situation where most of the club's board was constituted of neighbors. Uh that that is that is no longer true. There were no neighbors on the board uh that I'm aware of until um very recently two neighbors joined. But for many years and when we had our conversation in 2024, there were no uh immediate neighbors who served on the board. Most of the board lives quite quite a distance away.
>> And you both live in the area and you used to be members but are no longer members.
>> I'm still a member.
>> Okay.
>> I'm no longer a member. It's just Yeah.
No reason. But >> you're still a member.
>> As of as of right now, I'm still a member. Hopefully that >> we still have to clarify. We still have some overlap between the neighborhood and members. He's talking about just that there were no board members >> for a little while. We did and then we didn't. They kind of come and go, >> right? No. I understand that. Okay.
Thank you.
>> Anybody else questions?
>> Yeah, I had a quick question.
>> Okay, Mr. H question.
>> The um appellants testimony was that that photograph with the cars lining Hilddrth was taken during heavy renovations on site. Would it be your testimony that that is a regular occurring situation?
>> Yes, if you give me a minute, I can probably find pictures on my phone, but I'll if you want. But yeah, it it's obviously summer. um we don't have as much trouble during the winter months with the tennis traffic, but um yes, that is not a that's not an unusual site. We had this conversation and it was included in this slide, but we estimate there's about 30 to 40 days a year where there is heavy on street parking.
>> And would you be opposed to no parking on Hilddrth? Both sides?
>> I'll I'll take that. I don't really see that that's feasible again for the people who live on Hilddrth. Suppose they want to host a baby shower. They have a yard crew that comes. Um it's and and as the appellant mentioned, it'd be very hard to identify who who those people are. The issue is none of the neighborhood streets have sidewalks. We are a relatively narrow I don't remember the width >> 20 22 or 23.
>> We've talked at length to our council person about this. We're not a very it's it's not a very wide street to begin with and with no um sidewalks and frankly no shoulders a lot of the time.
So when you park on either side, yes, you're pushing people out. It does become somewhat of a um traffic calmer to have that much traffic. It's it's dangerous though for there there is anybody else walking through. It's a risk for >> So and you said the road is how how wide? 20 >> I think it's 21 >> 23 >> yeah it's below 23 ft.
>> It's been described to us as narrow >> which is which is why Metro has already eliminated parking on one side because it meets the narrow street policy. So based on that they've only allowed parking on one side already.
>> Okay.
>> Um and I so I think to answer your question Mr. Garrian. Um, our strong preference is that they provide parking on site to eliminate that impact on the neighborhood in terms of them losing their temporary on street parking. Uh, or at least have a a real uh parking plan offsite. We don't believe that the St. Barts it's it's just not long-term.
Uh, it isn't really going to be used.
Um, so that's our strong preference, but obviously before this situation continues, I guess we would prefer that.
Could you clarify what did Metro Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
>> My final question.
>> Would you be opposed to structured on street parking? By that I mean >> widening, you know, the cars instead of sitting within the travel lanes are same location shipped at all >> at their expense.
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. I I mean I think that's worth exploring, but um I I think we would certainly want I mean our request would be that they go address the parking situation and come back and that their membership be limited until that time.
Not to lose sight though that the other issue here is the the increase in size that is beyond the scope of what the original permit was for which led to the parking issues. So it seems like we could either try to fix the parking issues with this big number or we reduce the number and we go back to having the parking that was working. One um one question uh help me understand what Metro determines a narrow street. Was you said they determined that or they just said it was a narrow street?
>> No, no, no. I mean it's a determination but it's a mathematical computation.
It's based on the width and I think it's 21.
>> There's a Yeah, there INDOT has what's called a narrow streets policy and and uh I guess when neighbors there were neighbors that lived on that north side of Hilddrth who who reached out to INDOT to specifically because there were cars parked on both sides of the street. we don't have pictures of this. And that created an unbelievably dangerous situation um because you you really >> you couldn't pass.
>> You couldn't pass and you couldn't pull off on the side of the road. So So they brought in INDOT, they measured INDOT measured the width of the street, determined that it fit within the narrow street policy and then um uh and then my understanding is they they asked neighbors on the residential side, do you want no parking signs? They said yes. My understanding is they asked the club, would you like no parking signs on your side of the street, club? And at that point, the club declined. That's my understanding, though. I don't know that's >> but it is your testimony that INDOT did >> yes >> confirm that was a narrow street >> and that's the reason that they applied that they put those signs up >> um what about the the applicant showed a video of July 4th of 2025 it looked like there was no one street park >> I think we questioned what time of day that was >> so where did does anybody have any personal information about the parking because that would I think >> specifically on well the club can can testify of this. So, one of the things the club did, my understanding is on July 4th is they required reservations for members to use the club during staggered periods. So, there were there was a fixed number of members who could actually use the club at a given time.
And my understanding is that that did help uh with uh in in for for specifically for July 4th traffic. Um although I don't I I don't know how many days a year the club does that or or anything like that.
>> Okay. All right. Appreciate that.
>> Yep.
>> Chairman, I have one additional question. Uh I think uh you oppose one of the condition uh which is related to alcohol. Uh you oppose consumption uh not only sales. Uh could you tell me the reason other than it was original change from the original?
>> Sure. I think there's two things. One I will point out that they've leaned heavily on what Sequoia does and my understanding is Sequoia doesn't allow alcohol consumption on site. Um and and and part of that is that uh what you develop is a you know a crowd issue. I think we'd have less concern about the alcohol consumption. If if the overall like that that draws events, that draws more people to the pool. Um and so we're concern that's what we're concerned about. And so if that were to get addressed, I think there'd be less concern about the alcohol consumption itself, but we're worried about sort of the atmosphere that draws more people to the neighborhood right now. Anybody?
Okay. All right. Uh, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> We'll hear Mr. Lefver, you all have two minutes left.
>> So, Mr. Lever, can you address the parking? Uh, because here's what I'm hearing.
That in 1961, 162 on-site spaces were required for 500 members.
Um, right now you're you have 190 available.
85 of those are at St. Barth Bartholomew, which I I tend to agree and um people don't like offsite. I mean, it is I've they tried to do it at a place in my neighborhood years ago. It never seems to work. Um, and then you got 32 spaces which you may get, but I mean right now you haveund and five on-site spaces.
The original special exception required you to have 162. I'm struggling with that. Um, well, it's I think the conflict and it's hard to address 65 years later is that planning in 1960 and 1961 simply didn't measure their their requirements of you put the structure here, you put the parking lots here, and we're going to write a hundred here, and we're going to write 75 here. It's a simple impossibility. just nobody went out there and measured and said, "Can we actually fit 175 cars here?" So, >> and I totally get that part that they they they messed up in figuring how many, but it seems to me like at some point they determined you're going to have 500 members. We want you to have 162 spaces and somebody and maybe somebody just decided we need to put 162 spaces in here because that's how many they want. And um so you know that aside I mean that that could have happened um I mean does does the club really believe having you know satellite parking at St. Barthon's a a mile or so away which is not and I've been through that neighborhood it's not walkable. I mean to me tell me why that's why we should think that's realistic.
>> Well we paid over $2,000 last year for shuttles to go back and forth. So, it actually did work when it was planned and people were advised parking is at St. Bartholomew. This is a swim meet and my kids swam at 7 Hills until we realized they weren't good swimmers and they didn't swim anymore. But swim meets are big events. There's a morning session for the little kids and an afternoon session for the big kids. And so when you have >> the club pays for a shuttle >> over $2,000 last year for the for for the rental and the shuttle for St. Barthon.
>> Okay. And so when you have say Sequoia come and Sequoia has 625 members and they have a swim team. So for that day you have in theory hundreds of kids that are coming to participate in a swim meet in the morning for the young kids and the afternoon for the older kids. So those are the really busy days when St. Bartholomew is utilized. Uh my understanding if I heard correctly from somebody on the board was that there are only two swim meets scheduled for this year. Um so yeah St. Barthomies worked last year. I I I would challenge uh anybody to show pictures of 2025 that anywhere resembled what you saw for 2024. The timing of July 4th, that's July 4th. There's no Why would somebody film on the street six months ago if it was seven in the morning? And you see the cars actually in the parking lot on that video. All the parking lots are full. So, it's not like it's six in the morning and nobody's there. But what what the opposition said was that that the club had arranged that day for something unusual it seems which is you had to have a reservation to get into the club. So people couldn't just show up and go decide at 10 in the morning we want to go to the go swimming. You had to make a reservation and that am I correct that's not something that the club does regularly in the summer.
>> No no it was split between a morning session and an afternoon. So you had to book either the morning or the afternoon session mainly because that is by far the busiest day of the year at the club.
There games, kids come, there's greased watermelon, everything you remember as a kid happens. So they split it into two groups just because that's the biggest crowd of the year. Um St. Bartholomew really wasn't utilized on July 4th because of that. But again, it was utilized last year. There are no parking signs. 7 Hills actually puts no parking signs all the way down Hilddrth on their side. You have the no parking signs that Metro installed on the other side, but that video you'll notice there are no parking signs. I didn't count them, but probably 10, 15 no parking signs, as well as ribbons that are blocking everything off. So, Seven Hills takes every action that it can to prevent members from parking on the street. Um, an idea that was floated around, um, was include in the regulations that members cannot park on the street that allows the board to fine, enforce, threaten revocation of a membership if there is kind of a repeat offender. So, that's something that's been floated around because the board the board doesn't want and 7 Hills doesn't want street parking. They're completely open to that amendment that bans street parking. Um the challenge will be kind of defending the allegation that this car is a seven hills car versus a construction car across the street. Um so it's hard I mean the board I would assume doesn't have the ability to say no parking on Hildrith ever. I think you can only examine this case that's before you, but >> we don't have that ability. And I and I would bet that if people if word gets around, people would because I've seen this happen before when it when there was a something fairly similar in my neighborhood as people just start, you know, why get why give the license plate from our car, right? I mean, how are you guys going to enforce it? you know, you're going to go out and have a list of license plates and what if somebody takes the other car that they haven't given you the license plate for? So, I I I mean, do you practically think you could really the club could really enforce keeping members from parking on the street could enforce it in in the way that if we have the license plate, every every member is required at the beginning of every year to submit certain information and it gets logged in the comm computer system. So when you walk in the door, you have to give your name. They do the body count to see how many people are coming in. It would not be difficult to add a requirement that your license plate is entered to into the system. So that if a neighbor came forward and said, "This red car with license plate 1 2 3 4 was parked on the street, we can cross reference and say that was a member. We're going to issue what would similar be an abatement notice, a warning. You do it again, it's a fine." And then you threaten with revocation. The board in Seven Hills wants to enforce that. They're not opposed to an amendment that bans the street parking. It's just there's got to be some way to defend against there's a car on the street. It must be you.
You're violating the zoning ordinance.
>> I just I don't >> Steuart Burner, I'm I'm on the board 5326 Anchorage Drive, Nashville, Tennessee. Um the reality of it is we did enforce that last summer. in the at the very first of the summer we had um June is our busiest month and it was training our members from that previous summer where it we didn't have the parking we needed um last summer we we were um we had to train our members not to park on Hilddrth and we were so that first month there were a few mornings where where a few cars were parked in the morning or on Hilddrth but very quickly after we put those no parking signs up and that that alleviated parking on Hilddrth for the rest of the summer. We didn't have cars there. Um and and I mean the video shows those signs. That's the way it was all summer for the most part except for the first where we were still trying to figure out how to get everybody uh quit for get them to stop doing what we had done the the previous summer. So last summer we're way better. And this summer we actually have our the middle parking lot was only a third open at the first of the summer last summer. Our middle parking lots completely open this summer. Um it's it's fully a uh available. Um and it's we're we're we fully will fit inside of our property just like we did last summer for the most part. We had a few hiccups. Yes.
But the neighbors are saying something different. What I'll just which I'll tell you is not unusual in these cases.
This is what always happens is the the applicant is >> and I will agree with them. TW the summer 20 24 we were terrible. We didn't have a good plan. We didn't. We do. Now >> I I I have a qu I mean the only reason it sounds like the only reason you're here is due to the fact that you guys increased membership. Therefore, a ton of people started parking on the street and caused safety concerns on what INDOT considers a narrow street. So, you had a membership that was pretty static throughout the years and then it increased well above what technically you're allowed to do. And I guess I'm just trying to wrap my heads around it because I don't know how you squeeze 650 members into a smaller parking lot than what was originally planned. I mean, yeah, you can have shuttles. you going to have a shuttle every day or people going to park miles away? I guess I'm just trying to >> No, it was the it was the construction that caused all the all of the our members to park on the street. It was the construction, the lack of our parking lots being available. That is what caused us to park everywhere. And in prior boards, I beca got on the board a year and a half ago, so that was long before me. Um but they didn't have a good plan. And and so last summer when we started putting no parking signs along that street, it ended. Um >> do you know why the board I know you've only been there a year and a half, why they increased, you know, from 475 to 650?
>> Well, that was even years before that.
That's that's been years they years ago they did that. Um and I don't even know exactly when. um the the the the numbers of members um was sure did it help the the street parking in 2024? It didn't help. You're they're exactly right. But our numbers were higher than that before that. And when we were inside the the being able to park in front in inside of our property, it was um and just like we did last summer, we parked for the most part in front of inside of our property in our parking lots. Um we weren't perfect. I'm not saying we were perfect.
We weren't. Um but yeah, that's that's the it's not I mean I'm not saying uh the increase in numbers had no effect. It did. But uh last summer we kept inside of our park parking lot. So >> I mean I I appreciate you know obviously the efforts you made. I guess you know these special exceptions within residential neighborhoods. We're I think we're all sensitive to these because we are making special exceptions and I can't speak for the rest of my board members but I think we're all pretty sensitive to people staying within the lanes of those special exceptions. what whatever the rules and restrictions are on them. um because of the fact they're in the middle of a neighborhood and I'm all for more commercial small all be it small B in neighborhoods right so you don't end up with this vacuous area it's just residential but you know just there's a multiple layers of problems it's the lack of parking to even meet the original intended membership um I know that they're working on adding additional parking and it's kind of in the abyss of storm water um but I mean there's multiple things they're asking for Not just the parking, right? There's >> Are you Are you okay with replacing the Tell me about the private hedge. I mean, it died. That's not your fault. I remember that freeze, but do you you want to I saw the picture. Are you wanting to replace it with something besides what was there?
>> That's the main intent. We I don't even know if you can buy privet anymore in Tennessee. You can't buy it.
>> Yeah. I mean, we're we're fine screening just the way it was.
>> You're willing to provide adequate screening. That's >> Yeah. Yeah, it's more of it's more of the semantics of not being >> Okay, got you.
>> Um I'm still trying to get my hands around the the numbers. Um so you guys or anybody else correct me when I'm wrong here. So I think up until early 2020s somewhere there were 475 memberships. Is that accurate? And the 73 parking spaces that are on site today, those have historically been there.
the parking spaces. Yes.
>> So, 475 members, 73 parking spaces. Um, and I believe from what I've heard, parking wasn't a major issue. So, now you're adding, you want to add 175 additional memberships.
>> 150.
>> Well, 475 to 650. Yeah. And 32ish parking spaces. Is that correct? Okay.
Yes. Just want to make sure I had that right.
>> Has any official traffic or parking study been done associated with this plan?
>> We requested one like most of the streets in Nashville. It was denied because I guess we're not important enough. Um but traffic came out and said yes, you can park on one side of the street. We requested a stop sign at the intersection of Hilddrth and Mountain View, which is right up the hill. We've requested speed humps, cushions, whichever the term that we're going to use. We've requested those. Those have been denied.
We've looked into the private application to put those in as well, which is online. That's a cost issue. It depends on >> Can you hold just a second? Let's find out where that phone Okay, the phone stopped. Okay, go ahead.
>> Yeah, there's there's there's a private application you can put in for traffic calming measures, speed cushions. We've looked into that. that takes traffic study, engineer studies, um see how many you can put in. You can only put in a certain number in a certain span. We're willing to work with Metro on that as well. Um the neighbors concern, it's not necessarily, from my understanding, the parking on the street as much as it is the safety ramifications that come with parking on the street. Um, and hopefully if we can get the trafficcoming measures in, then cars drive slower and there is officially no parking on the street and the safety concerns can be alleviated.
>> Yeah, but we just don't know how that's going to work out.
>> I guess my question is more about the club hiring a traffic engineer or a parking engineer to do a study to evaluate the level of service on the existing streets. Can it accommodate the extra 150 new members at the club? And my understanding is that has not been accomplished. Is that correct?
>> No, we have not done an official traffic study. We'd be willing if that's a requirement to do and appear back before the board with more numbers. I mean that I know I know the board is limited in what what it can do, but it's almost like we would like to perform the traffic study, get results back from that. I would like personally not as the representative but more as factf finding to see what the summer is like. Take photographs, see what the conditions are. We have two different opinions.
Obviously, our position is what you saw in the 2025 video of July 4th is the way it is. Um the neighbors seem to think that it's different. I'd love to have a period where I was actually tested to see what the I mean the if you're at Seven Hills in the morning and I say this because again I was a member from childhood until recently.
Most of what you see is drop off. Kids get dropped off at the door. They go up to swim. They get picked up. Yes, you have people parking. You have families that come and spend a couple hours there. But it's never like there are 650 families on site at one time. the the figure the 512 that's the average again bodies going in. It's not even 650 people going in. It's 512 people in the busiest month of the year that go through that those doors on a 10-hour period. And I and I agree with that, but it's and again I say this because it this happens frequently.
you know, it's often in the eye of the beholder and the applicant doesn't really see a parking problem and that's a legitimate view, but then because they're just looking at it differently, but then the neighbors do see a a parking issue and we can't ever sort that out. I mean, it's >> or, you know, >> we can't really weigh the credibility of >> is is it and this is a question for I guess Mr. Harus and Metroleal just thinking of possible um solutions. Is it possible to defer an application pending investigation, a traffic study, see how it goes over the summer?
>> I mean, it's possible. We've done that before. Um >> yeah, I mean, from a number standpoint, you know, if you're saying there's a lot of drop offs by increasing from 500 to 650, that's 30% more drop offs. 30 30% more cars that are driving through a narrow street. And we have seen applications come here with some version of traffic studies to at least help us get the data. But there's other, you know, there's a handful of other things that we haven't even covered. And you know, I'll say this probably because I work with my profession as you do too with expert witnesses. I just when somebody goes and hires and pays a for a traffic study um you know there's lots of ways to portray things and still be an honest expert but portray them for the benefit of the party that ordered the study. So I will just tell you I don't sometimes question the the uh how unbiased those reports could be. I mean, to me, it's again, it's the the neighbors say there's a problem.
Club says there isn't so much of a problem. We do know the club's grown by, you know, 150 people. There's clearly a, you know, you don't have the number of parking spaces that you were even supposed to have under the original ordinance. Um, so anyway, and I I think I may have interrupted you again, Mr. Ransom. I'm sorry.
>> I have additional question. So you have been mentioning July 4th is the busiest day and you do have a plan to uh restrict uh not everybody come together. What is second busiest day and do you have any other traffic parking mitigation uh to address overflow parking?
>> We have the St. Bartholomew um that as the board saw as a monthtomonth. We don't think it would be an issue to secure a longer term. I mean, they're not going to give us a 10-year lease for the parking lot, but it can be extended.
I'm sure we can negotiate something.
They're very willing because, of course, it's a church and they're not in session seven days a week with uh the need for all of this parking.
>> We could also put a a condition on it that the special exception lasts uh only so long as the agreement with St. Bart Bartholomew continues. I think we could do that.
Could we not? I >> it it was St. And the way we worded it was St. Bartholomew's or another because if for some reason St. Bartholomew was sold or is no longer available in that scenario, we'd like the ability to ask another church in the location to substitute in. So a condition that yes, there be available 190 or whatever number um would be appropriate that that we wouldn't have an objection to that condition at all. I have a question might be for legal or Joey. Um I this is my first time or at least my first time I can remember that we're amending a special exception. So when you amend a special exception do you have to look at it through the original lens of approving the special exception the same has to check all the same boxes essentially you're not you know injurous to neighbors or how does that work?
Uh >> well um the specific conditions no I mean that these this entity was approved years you know decades ago >> 1960 >> in our code we have these you know this use has specific conditions that they have to meet we don't look at those but I think I think you you would need to look at sort of the general provisions in 1716 150 and determine and whatever changes they're asking to make. You know, you're sort of acting as the it's balancing the what they're asking for versus what the code says, >> right, >> impacts that you have to do. I don't think you're going through you're not going through a line by line of the specific conditions for a club or rec center or whatever this use is, but the general conditions, that's a determination y'all have to weigh, >> right? whether you know what they're proposing versus what occurring now.
>> Okay. No, understand. I just want to make sure there wasn't something else I was missing with these special exceptions. Thanks, Joey.
>> And and chairman, about the traffic study, um we'd be willing, of course, to reach compromise of like we do in settlement agreements. You propose an engineer, we propose an engineer, we agree on an engineer, and then the results of that traffic study are are binding. Uh we wouldn't be have an objection to that if that's a condition that could somehow be incorporated.
Okay. Well, I appreciate that.
>> Have you all coordinated with NDOT on the location of the new parking that you're proposed?
And are you also accommodating appropriate parking buffers and landscape buffers for that new parking?
>> We are whatever storm water requires us to do, we're going to do. It's still in that phase where we're we're we're on the preliminary. We've submitted the plan. Storm water, you tell us what you want. we're going to comply with whatever you want as long as it's feasible from a cost perspective, of course. Um, INDOT, no, they'll have to approve it, but if Storm Water approves it, we don't anticipate that being an issue to add 30 spots. It's a if if you saw the map, it's a big piece of land over there. Uh, just the topography, you would really have to dig in and put in retaining walls. When they did the renovation in 2022, they had to install what I'm guessing is a 25 ft retaining wall around the back of the pool. The topography just makes it really difficult.
>> Yer, they will when they do install this new parking lot, they'll have to meet the interior perimeter landscape provisions of the zoning code.
>> Thank you. And one of the reasons for the 1961 amendment and talking to um Byron Hall is part of that amendment says the purpose is to move everything up towards Hildrith. Byron Hall told me that when they were Byron's the head of codes now Joey is he still Byron Hall >> our director >> the Yeah, he's the director. He told me when Seven Hills was being originally constructed, there was a landslide cave in and it's why they had to move everything up is because the topography made it that way.
>> Um, I'm still trying to piece together all this timing because you're currently over the 500, correct? The gravel area that is this future parking lot, is that being used for parking today?
Yes, we have been using that. It's not as big as it will be. Um, it was originally a staging area for our construction and we've just kind of continued to use that until we get approval on that.
>> Yes. And and one more note on that picture from 2024 with all the cars, you'll see the construction equipment in the background uh of that picture that was in 2024 when the construction was ongoing.
>> Okay. That just had another question. So the gravel was put in in 2024 >> at the end after the season of 23. So it was in the fall of 23. So kind of after the pool season closed >> and your membership around that time was >> same.
>> And for reference, the pool is only open from Memorial Day to Labor Day. So it's effectively four months a year that it's open. Tennis courts of course are open year round. And there are indoor four three or four indoor courts that are four indoor courts that can be used all year round. But the majority of this traffic the swimming is from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
So if you haven't figured out where I'm trying to head here is or trying to figure out what I've heard is circa 23 there wasn't a major parking issue.
Circuit 23, there was 475 members.
You're adding more members. Maybe you have, but you're adding more parking.
So, I'm trying to piece together that ratio between the the historic membership of 47573 parking spaces, additional membership, additional parking.
I think the ratio I don't get my calculator but I think it's approximate the ratio of the original >> one per six and a half >> that's that's >> 20 pre2020 >> that's >> it would be one per five and a half for the additional families additional parking >> the 6 and a half right is or 6.7 is what Sequoia was granted ours would be lower if granted I think 6.2 I think the original at 162 parking spots I think was a 1:3 uh ratio. I think we're one to four. A little over 1 to four with the new numbers.
Yeah. I mean there's a handful of conditions that they were not, you know, weren't meeting, right? No alcohol, there was alcohol. No, a certain amount of parking. Didn't have that much parking.
This many members had more members. It's almost like someone comes in and builds a house with no permits over the over the building restriction line and says, "Hey, you know, I I don't know. I just also the, you know, private hedge, it's a it's a landscape buffer. It's it's pretty common for commercial spaces to have landscape buffer up against. And I get the freeze, but that was not yesterday."
>> Um, so, >> and there has been planting since the freeze. It's not mature, of course, like it was. It's not It's not like we're avoiding putting back any buffer. It's just growing back.
>> I understand.
>> Any any more questions for the opposition?
>> I mean, for the applicant, sorry.
Um, one other one of the some of the uh additional language in here that you know outside of the parking which we've seen have been talking about a little bit. One is related to that East Day's activities shall cease no later than 10 p.m. every day in the week including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
>> That's in the original 1960. That's not We're not asking to amend anything about that. That's the original. That's the original right now. You had that's in your application. Maybe I'm It's exhibit A to Mr. Lefver's April 6, 2026 letter is what they're asking for.
>> Yeah, that's >> that's what that's what they're asking for, right?
Yeah. And and what he's saying is many of these were in the original or several of them were in the original 1961.
>> Okay.
>> They were part of the conditions in 1961.
>> Yeah. That that letter reiterates every condition that was there originally. So it has all eight enumerated conditions then two more imposed conditions.
>> All right. I guess you didn't call out the the you know compare and contrast >> the number. Right.
>> The numbers. Yeah.
>> It's just the four. It's the landscaping, which again we're going to comply with, just don't want it to have to be private, >> the parking, the membership, and the alcohol.
>> So, four requested amendments.
>> Okay. Well, that's why. Okay.
>> Any more questions?
>> No.
>> Okay. We'll close the public hearing and discuss.
>> Thank you.
>> Yep. Thank you all.
I mean from you know of the four alcohol consumption I mean I think from a culturally in the 1960s it's probably very different than it is now. Um so I I don't even know if I can I don't even know how we can even speak to that. Um so >> I think probably I think based on the item A discussion we have which you I don't think I think several people said that's not really an issue that as long as you're not selling it. So >> yeah. Um, I don't really Yeah. Okay. Um, I don't know. My It just seems like there's there's a narrow street. They've increased the membership beyond what they're allowed to do and now they're kind of coming back and and it seems like they could have a potential member problem if because they've let all these additional members in. But, uh, you know, even if they increase the parking to what they're talking about doing on site, it's still less than what was originally proposed and their memberships increased.
by 175 to what it's traditionally been or 150 more. Um, and that's a 30% increase. And without having the data other than just, you know, neighbors and their testimony, it's hard to say. I mean, they they did say INDOT does consider it a narrow street. Um, and you know, there's no everything here has no sidewalks and coverts. It's a dangerous street to potentially walk on. So, I'm having a tough time with it. I think for me there's just not quite enough information yet and I would love to see them work with the neighbors to develop a traffic management plan. See if there actually is capacity on the streets for those extra 150 members. Make sure that they have adequate parking for those extra 150 members. I'd love to see an associated site plan that shows traffic movement, turning, associated buffers, um, landscaping buffers that would be required, um, for the site and make sure that they are, you know, not significantly, um, you know, requiring any detriment to their neighbors because of this increase from the 500 to the 650, but I just haven't necessarily seen it yet. Um, however, it does feel like there are good relationships, at least historically, with the neighborhood. Um, so I would like to think that they would be able to work on that together a little bit more.
>> Some of the oppositions is still a member. So, yeah, I would think so as well.
So isn't it appropriate to take up on the deferral because uh applicant suggested to bring us more accurate data and present us, you know, proposal. So >> I mean I I I certainly get that, but I feel like this is like a we I've only been on the board a couple years, but I've seen Seven Hills quite a bit. I mean, this is not the first time they've been here. Um, so yeah, having all that information would be helpful. I I wish they certainly would have produced it the I know this is the first time under this case, so I think that would have been nice to see. Um, I don't I guess I'm pretty on the fence on that one, but >> yeah, I what I heard is I I didn't hear there was necessarily opposition to the increase in membership. I heard that there was opposition to parking in the street, >> right? Um, I do think there's an avenue that the applicant can um attempt to quantify.
It's hard from an engineering standpoint to to put a traffic a parking requirement on a use like this. That's why a lot of these in the code say as determined by INDOT or Metro's traffic engineer. Um, a lot of times stuff like this has to be based on historical data.
Um, and I think there's an avenue there.
There's a lot of historical data that can be documented here and put into a report by a licensed traffic engineer um to to help us feel better about it.
Um, I think that when that new parking lot opens, I think that will alleviate a lot of the street parking concerns, but again, I think that needs to be documented. Um, funny that that you were comfort comfortable with the alcohol because that that was the one that jumped right out to me and I think the opposition had a great point that it's it's not necessarily the consumption.
It's it's more of the atmosphere it potentially could create. Um, people tend to stay at the pool longer when there's stuff in the cooler. Um, you know, and that that that keeps the parking lot full. Um people tend to go to the pool more when they're bringing the cooler. Um so so that was really the main one I struggled with cuz uh the landscaping I think is pretty simple.
It's you just it just there's landscape buffers in the code for commercial property adjacent to residential. Meet it or exceed it. um you know that it's it's um I I I feel like the the best foot hasn't been put forward yet >> is what I'm trying to get out there.
>> Yeah. I don't I mean for me per the alcohol or the that's not that to me that it's not a hangup and I think the landscape buffer situation is easily solvable and they seem like they'd be willing to solve it.
I guess the precedent that I don't like is you know any other club or what what you whatever you want to call it that has a special exception on a cap of membership can just exceed their membership and come on in here and say hey we're asking for an amendment to our special exception for 100 more members for whatever reason because instead of coming be first beforehand and asking and then filling up the membership it's kind of the other way around so that's and yes I agree the traffic study would be super helpful and to see if it can um you know actually quantify But even if it does, I guess that's still something I just don't particularly like um setting a precedent for, I guess, from a special exception standpoint.
>> So, and and I think a traffic study would be helpful. Um I will just tell you the way and if we defer it and get a traffic study, that's fine. That will give us more information. But just based on the number, we have 52 letters of opposition, which is a whole lot. I don't think wherever this goes, I'm going to I will be personally comfortable. I have one vote obviously of of not putting a one-year condition on this because I think what that incentivizes the club to whatever they have to do um make sure that you know the neighbors are they don't have these parking issues because my concern is if we just rely on a parking study which is really good information to have but if we just approve it and don't put a time limit on it and that things change and maybe there was quirk in the parking study or you know we've the the neighbors aren't going to have any protection at that point if it just doesn't work out for whatever reason.
So, I just I say that I'm fine with a I think having more information to your point is always very helpful and it may help them may help the club figure out how they address with this. But I will say based on the the fact that this really is it has all the attributes of a commercial establishment dropped into a neighborhood. It was and and they have a special exception. It's not I mean they've had the right to have 500 people there and so they're not being denied that. they just want an increase. And um wherever this goes, I would, you know, I'm going to, my position would be whatever we approve, whenever we approve it, I would still want them to come back within a year and um and and hear from the neighbors again and make sure this problem because I do believe that um you know, in in these cases, it's always it's seen it so many times that the applicant does believe that they're doing things and it's helping and that I get that's their viewpoint, but and the neighbors don't view it that way and there is no way for us to sort that out.
I mean, we we just can't we're not there all the time. We have a different viewpoint. So, >> I I agree. I also think that the 650 number needs to be justified, right?
Just because that's what they have today does not mean that that's necessarily what is um correct for this site and this neighborhood. And so I think anything above 500 I want to have justification for how that still is functioning well on site.
>> And one thing before I forget and you reminded me um was there was a I I've not seen in my packet but the council member Euing her letter of opposition is am I missing it?
>> Well she I think she did write a letter of opposition. Mr. Hollowman said we didn't see the whole letter but he said on the record that she directly opposed it.
>> Okay.
>> It is in there. that on the 18th.
>> Okay.
>> On the 18th. So, it's probably in that you'll see additional information and it's right there right below it. Not necessarily maybe in the packet itself, but underneath it, >> I have something from um Sarah Lines in that additional information.
I'm not. You're talking about in the 521 additional information folder.
>> Are you looking on your link?
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Hold on one second. I'll pull it up.
>> Okay.
Don't There's more discussion. Continue.
I just I just would like to see it. I mean you >> I don't know which way we are going but you know if we are defiant or some put some condition and I still feel like because of uh potential improvement it's applicant to convince us yes we can do improve this and then as of right now we do have a letter of opposition uh it's not last week but it's uh up to applicant to convince us yes there was a 52 opposition but because of the new plan and we are able to work with the neighborhood and therefore 52 opposition is now 19 or zero will be ideal but you know so I think it's uh on to applicant to bring uh those uh information uh to us >> so it seems like where the crossroads we're at is do we approve something with conditions or do we defer and and uh ask for a traffic study and I'm really fine either way. So >> I think at this point I would not move for approval. Um, but I would like to make a motion to defer under the condition that the applicant continue to work with the neighborhood and work on traffic management plan and perhaps some other mitigations which might include landscaping or traffic movement or other um options that you might come up with.
>> Okay. And um do you do you is part of that do you want the club to come up with a a traffic study?
I would be open to discussion on that, but I would like to see um perhaps a traffic study, but definitely a traffic management plan that the the neighbors are comfortable with or is at least discussed with the neighbors.
>> Okay.
Is there >> I second the motion.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
>> I think they need the professional. I think they need the traffic parking study. I just don't see how they would I'm going to suggest that amendment.
Okay.
>> Okay. So, the motion has been amended to include that plus a traffic study. And I won't make this condition, but Mr. Lefver mentioned it. I think it would be very helpful to know that the the traffic engineer was someone who was agreed to by both parties. Uh even though I know the club will be paying for it, I just will tell you I'm not going to make ask to make make that a condition, but I think it'd be very helpful. Okay. So, there's a motion and and is there was there was a second.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And then there's an amendment.
>> One question. Defer till when?
>> Yeah.
>> Probably going to take at least >> I mean, you can set a date. If they get back with us and they don't have what you need, we push it off. But I give me a date so I can at least >> they're going to get a traffic study.
I'm thinking probably going to have to be at least six weeks. I well I can tell you right now you're not going to get a traffic study because school's out and they won't take traffic counts while school's out. A parking study is a different story. But a true traffic study uh summer months are no no for traffic counts.
>> Do you think we we may just need a parking study? I mean is that where that's where my non-engineer >> I think an access and parking study okay would be sufficient. That's doable in six weeks maybe >> possible.
>> Okay. Well, they can always we can always defer again if it's not.
>> Well, it needs six weeks and then N DOT to review because I see in our packet ND do has not provided any kind of recommendation. So, um another two weeks for them to review, >> I think. So, >> so target July 16th. And I think, >> just so I'm clear, what are we I think having more information is better, but what are we hoping to accomplish, I guess, with the parking or traffic study, making sure that we're not guessing on the ratio of members to >> I'll try >> I'm not an expert on traffic studies or parking studies. So, >> yeah, I'll try to restate the motion. we defer to July 16th um >> 18th >> 18th and with the uh which will give the neighbors and the club the ability to discuss some more. It will give the and the club the chance to come up with a parking study.
Is that fair to say? And did you have a that was that was your condition?
>> Yeah. And that it be reviewed by ND do before it comes here.
>> And that it be reviewed by N DOT that we have an ND dot review at the time of the next year.
>> I'd like to see a landscape plan, too.
>> What's that?
>> I'd like to see a landscape plan, too.
There's been a lot of discussion of >> Okay.
>> do the screening like it used to be. Do you know how about >> Will you accept an amendment that there be a landscape plan too?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So the motion would also include amended to include that the club come up with a landscape plan.
>> Second amended plan.
>> Okay. There's a So there's a motion and a second. Okay. Any further discussion?
>> Is there a takes care of some of the information, but how would we even make a determination on membership level at this point?
>> It feels to me like the biggest rub is traffic and parking in the neighborhood, right? And if the traffic and parking plan can't justify 650 members, >> the parking study will show that perhaps some information.
>> I would hope that it would either include mitigations for that or perhaps an adjusted membership level that could be justified on site.
>> Thanks. I think Mr. Grian made a really good point. They don't the neighbors don't and I don't recall them complaining directly about the number of members. It's I don't think there would be complaints if there was adequate parking. It just it seems like the issue is that the increased membership has caused the issues.
>> Yeah. And I just don't like the you know going beyond what was originally granted from a membership level. But I agree.
>> Yeah. Motion in a second. Okay. Any further discussion?
>> Chairman M for a clarification on the landscaping plan.
>> Sure.
>> The original required east and west landscaping. Do you want to see an entire property landscaping plan or just a plan that would bring it in compliance with the >> I thought it was north and south but the the replacement of the buffers >> required >> the screening along the parking lots.
>> I think it would be beneficial for you and I'm not going to make this a condition to bring a landscaping plan for the entire site.
>> Okay. Uh so the motion is made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All right. All in favor?
Okay. That motion passes. So we'll see him back at July and 16th. July 16th.
>> Okay.
Next case before the board will be case uh bottom page three case 2026-57.
Uh the good news for our new members, you get to sit this one out. Um so M and Miss Yoder will be >> I'm conflicted on this one.
>> Yes. And uh let the record affect that um Mr. Pepper is also out on this hearing.
Okay.
They are requesting a special exception in setback and height requirements in the CS NS district. The appellent seeking to construct a mixed use >> Hey Joe >> building.
>> Sorry to interrupt, but if our members have to sit out and Mr. Pepper have to sit out.
>> Oh yeah, we got a problem.
>> We did. Thank you for that. Okay. Uh case 57 we will hear on >> June. What's that date, Christie?
June 4th.
>> June 4. Yep. This case is deferred till June 4.
>> I I won't be here June 4th, Joey.
>> Next one will be June 18th.
>> Oh, wow.
>> That's another month for them.
>> Just for the clarification on our rule, if new member uh were able to watch the previous, it does not qualify. They can't because they weren't members of the board previously.
>> Cannot.
>> Could we vote?
>> Nope.
>> No.
>> And then just >> just trying not to make the applicant wait another month. That's all.
>> I mean, Miss Miss Davis, >> there any other options?
>> No, we don't have a quorum. Um, we'll have to wait.
Yeah, there's no and you won't be here on the 4th.
>> So, we'll have to postpone till the 18th.
>> I'm out of town for work on the 4th and then >> Okay.
>> the 18th I'm here.
>> All right. It's case uh case 57 be deferred till June 18th 1 p.m.
>> Are you guys going to be here on the 18th?
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Last case.
>> Final case. Um, okay. Let's see. Let me double check what we got here. Yes. All right. So, this case, case 64, uh, Gabriel Ishi Van Meyer is the appellent. Uh, the owner and Charles Gregory Smith and Virginia Abernathy, owner of the property at 203 Rolling Fort Court, requesting a variance in street setbacks in RS40. Uh, this was deferred after a public hearing on May 7th. You directed the uh applicant to obtain some additional drawings and information. You did close the public hearing, so you would need to reopen >> to hear it. Mr. Ransom did not attend.
Uh but you have you been provided with the link of the hearing.
>> Yes, I've watched I want to uh be included. Yes.
>> And you will participate. All right. So, all six members be eligible to participate in this case. I >> Oh, I watched it too >> at Ross as well. Yes, >> I watched it, too.
All right. And Mr. Pepper will be participating. Okay.
Let me just recap briefly on the screen here.
>> Is someone supposed to begin?
>> Sorry.
>> All right. This is subject properties located at the uh terminus of Rolling Fork Court. This was the site plan submitted by the appellant at that hearing.
uh requested a 75 ft street setback and 88.28 was required by contextual setback which is the average of the four closest residences to this lot. You see the site plan that was submitted by the applicant. This was a view of the subject site, the view of adjoining properties and we had a public hearing.
You asked for additional information from the appellant. uh I believe he submitted a revised plan or additional information to you all should have been provided in your packet. He has also submitted a PowerPoint for his thing. Should you well to hear from him, you're going to have to open the public hearing. I guess decide how much time uh you'd like to provide each side.
>> Uh thoughts on uh reopening the public hearing and amount of time and >> check. We do have opposition present.
Okay.
>> Okay. Thoughts?
>> Three or five minutes, but I'd be open to opening it again. U >> I'd be okay with five minutes. I mean, Okay. So, we'll reopen the public hearing and each side will have five minutes. Okay.
>> Can I ask a question before we start my five minutes?
>> Sure.
>> Um, so if this is redundant with what I presented last time, I mean, everyone here has seen that at this point, so it's might as well want might want to save it for for opposition. I guess I would just focus on the additional uh >> Does that sound right?
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I mean, it might you might be better to reserve time for We have all seen it. I know I'm familiar with it.
You you you can reserve as much time as you want for rebuttal.
>> Okay.
>> And that might be >> Yeah, I think I'll just go ahead and do that then if everyone's seeing it.
>> Uh before you sit down, does anybody have any questions for the applicant before >> Okay. So, you reserve all your time for Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. So, we'll hear from the opposition.
>> Did he say he did something additional since the last time or No. Did I miss that?
>> I think he said what I heard the applicant say was he'd just be present.
same thing.
>> Yeah, sorry to interrupt. Uh the slide prior to this that was submitted since the last hearing that's showing the disturbance if we stick with the contextual setback.
And then the yeah, that's showing the disturbance with the contextual. So you can see those are the five foot uh contours, not the one foot on the next slide, but you can see that we're just jamming way up into that steep slope.
And then the following slide I submitted actually during the hearing last time and it was I didn't there wasn't really enough time to review it. That's the uh proposed plan.
And you can see we're we're still cutting into the steep slope there but we're you know avoiding the vast vast majority of it there.
>> And behind there it just goes >> but straight up. the previous one um had seemed to have a different footprint or was it was just the way the scale came out?
>> Just the way the scale came out. I think that the difference between the one foot and the five foot contour lines.
>> So that's that's at 88 and then >> the contour lines.
>> Yeah, the contour lines look different.
Yeah.
>> So that's five foot contours and that's one foot. So you're basically saying um if I'm understanding this correctly, same exact program, one's roughly 15 feet further than the contextual setback. The other one meets the contextual setback. Yep.
>> But it's the same footprint.
>> Yep.
>> You're just carving more into the Yep.
>> into the um back of the mountain.
>> That's right.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. We'll hear from those parties opposed to the case. If you'll come forward, please. So, we got >> Are y'all in y'all not opposed? You're the owner's, right? You can sit down.
You'll get to come back up.
>> Are we done?
>> No, you you have time and rebuttal.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, they they're the owners.
>> Okay.
I got confused myself. If there are any any other parties beside these three gentlemen, we got four seats. Feel free to come forward. All right. Gentlemen, you've seen the all the hearings ahead of you. If you'll identify yourselves and make a presentation. And I'll start the clock after after your initial.
>> Yeah. Jacob Underwood, 201 Rolling Fork Court.
>> Matthew Cordowski, 200 Rolling Fork. And I'm ethically disclosed. I'm a New York attorney, but I'm here in my personal capacity.
>> Gordon Chenery, 203, I'm sorry, 207 Rolling Fork Court.
>> Okay. Uh, as we all know, a variance not a standard permit. Um, the applicant must prove each factor. I believe they failed at least three. This lot is buildable within code. Um, by the developer's own admission, a smaller development would be within code on the lot. The pure intent here is to build a 5,000 square foot house that juts out onto the street. Uh, that intent is clearly for profit. Um, the hardship here is self-imposed. This lot has been treated as one common ownership with between the lot that sits in between mine and Jacob's. Jacob's operating his for decades. Um, the price he played reflected all of that. He knew the setbacks. He knew the slope. Um the motive here, as I've said, is is purely financial. A bigger footprint means a higher sale price. That's the entire purpose of this application.
>> But but he can I mean, he's allowed to build up to that square footage.
>> Could I ask for a time? Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. I mean, he's he's allowed to build up to that. How is it for financial? How is it a purely financial motive if you're building something you're allowed to build in terms of square footage under the code?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not I'm not opposition it to proper development. I'm saying that he has to meet the the zoning requirement to do so. So, I mean, I can you can buy a lot and build a 100,000 foot house if the lot provides it, but I can't come in here and claim I have a hardship if there is no legal actual legal hardship. And I don't think that standard has been met for for multiple reasons. Um he's he's projecting to jut it out um with the setback variance. And I would urge the board to find another property in the Westme area that shares that same type of profile. I grew up there. I've lived there for 25 years.
There are not properties to that extent.
By his own admission, he could build a 3500 foot house that would properly fall within zoning um and legal parameters and I believe there's a duty to to respect those zoning requirements.
Um I I'd like to add, you know, RS40 zoning exists exactly for this kind of property. Um, if compliance is optional whenever it costs more, then RS40 zoning uh means nothing. Every developer who buys a difficult head uh lot can do this. Uh you're not deciding one variance tonight. You're deciding what RS40 means in Westme. Uh I would respectfully ask on the record for written findings on each factor. Um and I >> we don't give written findings.
>> Okay. Does that that record? Does that does that contest against if I file a registr against this that that there's not written?
>> Well, I mean there'll be a we don't make written findings of fact. We'll we issue a decision that's you know pretty standard.
>> Okay. Okay. Then we would reserve the right to file a rid of cersciori and ask for material evidence that each of these factors is met. And as I've stated, I believe they failed on at least three.
I see my time.
>> Yeah. Um obviously complete profit. We're my my house is the one you see in that culde-sac. So, I'm directly affected by this negatively. Obviously, the curb appeal to my house cuz what's happening now is you have this setback that makes every home start at an even playing field set back into the hills. And my backill, this steep hill is the same hill that I'm dealing with. So, I have the same hardship. My house was built there. It's a it's a nice size home.
It's 3,000 ft. I've had to tear down 500. So now I've got a house double the size of mine trying to fit in the full footprint of this water basin. I want to point out that uh Tom Duffle, councilman, was kind enough to come by and check out this lot. I don't know him. He came by and saw this and said this is uh a basin that catches all this water. Not only does the setback not make sense, but a house built here at all doesn't make sense. If you're going to have a setback where he, you know, he doesn't want to have to deal with the mountain, it's the same mountain that I had to deal with. You just have to make a smaller house that fits where the water can go around the mountain without having to carve and completely destroy the waterfalls or whatever is coming out of that mountain. But what happens now is because these are pizza pies and they get wider as you go back, that ordinance helps my house and this house have some sort of separation as you drive up to this culde-sac. And what's happening now is if you take that house that's twice the size of mine and you move it forward, it's eclipsing my house. My house looks like a growth on the back of this house. It's he's we're already sharing a property line that goes across my driveway uh to show that it's pure profit. He's measuring from the driveway property line, not trying to fix it.
He's measuring from the property line 15 ft from there and that's where he's going to build. There's no uh respect for privacy or whoever lives there. Now, I've got an abnormally house in this neighborhood that's going to be abnormally close to mine in a lot that's now abnormally close to the street. And it's absolutely if you look at my house from the beginning, if you see how his house is going to sit, it diminishes my value 100%.
>> You have the partial view or Mr. Argus, can you put that up? So your your your concern is and and the last hearing. I know your concern seemed to be strictly the the water issue, but now you you also have a concern with the aesthetic appearance of >> Yeah, I'm seeing now I'm seeing the lines of where this house is being built. uh the water that comes off of that side of the house. I don't see if you're building to the property line on the driveway and you give 15 p feet past that because that's your legal right to build because you want to maximize the footprint. You have a huge problem with not only the look of it. Now you're moving it forward. We've lost complete control of water, let alone walkways between the homes. That's the support for my driveways where he's putting that house where those water waterways have to flow through. I have not seen anything for that. Your house is this one here up on the >> Show me. Can you >> Oh, that's really nervous.
>> Yeah, I think it is. Yeah, it is.
>> Okay. One in the middle there.
>> Down close to to the street in the center of the culde-sac. Yeah.
>> To the left.
>> Left or left?
>> Our left. Yeah.
>> I I'd like to add too there. The lot goes all the way to the top of the hill and Gordon's here property is reflected in the parcel viewer indicating that there is a buildable site at the top of the hill. It may be harder. may be more expensive, but that's not the legal standard here.
>> So, what which one is your lot here?
>> So, my mine's the center with that house there. When when my house was built in '95, it owned all three uh of the parcels. So, it was built to extend, as you see, into the parcel on my right. Uh it actually that line now goes through my living room. Uh which is crazy. I'm dealing with the other line. You can't see because my driveway is not on this map, but the line that's separating 203 and me, it starts on my driveway, ends on my driveway, cuts off some of my retaining wall, and my only access to the back side of my house. So, I'm already encroaching onto his property.
I'm already having to walk onto his property to get to my backyard. And again, >> can I pause you, sir, over here to your left just one second? Are you basing those statements off this map? No. Or have you had a survey? Cuz I'm saying don't trust >> No, I know. No, his his own surveys came. They just drew the lot, the property lines, and he had to make marks on my actual track.
>> I just want to make sure cuz the our maps, no one ever reads the disclaimer, but basically these aren't accurate. So, I mean, >> no, this is a his own surveyor came out and put the dots on my driveway and let me know exactly where they are.
>> Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> I'm um just have a question for you. Um, I'm a little worried if we, let's say we don't approve this, he's still allowed to build that size house on that lot and he may push it back and he may push it back into the hill a lot more and I'm worried that's going to create more of a storm water issue.
>> Well, where the line is on our um property line, he's got at least four waterfalls on his side. I've got all mine coming down and dumping off into the the same waterway it always did. And I told you guys before like backwards or forward, I don't think that matters. I think all the water floods to the front anyways uh of the property. It pools in the street. Uh what what's going to happen now is there's you're just going to move that massive house to the front of my house. Water still has nowhere to go. I mean, truthfully, because the hill is steep and you see now my house is basically cut off on each side between somebody else's property. I would ask for the same variance because if I want to write make an extra bedroom for my daughter, I have no other way but to go forward to the street.
>> There's no room to go back. If I have the same hardship he's got, like let's just all move our houses closer to the street then because right now I I need an extra bedroom, too.
>> And Christine, I'd like like to add, I mean, the the burdens on the applicant there to provide hydraological experts show that they could do that. Um, you know, that that's squarely within the applicant's um jurisdiction to provide you mentioned that he could uh build at the top of his property like the neighbor.
>> Um, >> so I'm looking at the topographic map and your neighbor has an area that flattens out on the upper right of the property, which is where his house is located. And if you look at this subject lot, the only area that flattens out is at the basin. So, is there a particular area on this lot that you would suggest for him to build similar to your neighbor since your neighbor's topography is sizably different than this particular piece?
>> The the point I'm trying to make is that there are alternative builds here that are compliant. A 3500 foot home is compliant. That that is not not the legal standard to provide a hardship variance. So I I'm not familiar with the exact buildability up there. I'm not an expert on that. But again, if 3500 square foot could be built by his own admission and be compliant, that's not the standard we should be applying for hardship variance that essentially allows anyone in West Me to come and say, "Hey, I I can build if uh this lot is slightly odd and I'll build as big as I want." I know Greg had recently just sold the property uh to the new builder, but uh when I had first bought my house from him, he was trying to do a a lot line adjustment to widen the basin so that my house had the waterways and flows. And he said that he got it perked for two homes at the top of that hill.
So, he was trying to do a trade originally where I would give him back an acre that I just purchased for him and he would widen the line so that my stuff wasn't in somebody else's property and then he would be able to build two homes. So, that's been proven uh and at least told to us before as well.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any more questions for the opposition?
>> Uh, no.
>> Okay. Thank y'all. Would you like to have some time if you'd like to speak?
>> You've got a minute 24. You have something to say, too.
>> I would like to. Um, y'all asked for more detailed plans to be submitted. Do we have access to those plans?
>> You should have access to everything that's in the record.
>> Have they been submitted?
>> Um, >> there were plans submitted last time that are now in the board packet.
>> Yeah, >> they think they were submitted during the meeting. I thought y'all asked for more detailed plans, >> an expert testimony.
>> No, no, we had um >> also submitted another exhibit in addition.
>> We did ask for time to review the more detailed grading plan that came in and that was provided. So, >> was I don't remember expert testimony.
What was that?
>> I don't know if anybody's asked for expert testimony.
>> Sir, can our time be paused, please? I I believe we said it could be helpful if they had civil engineers or others provide more information, but I don't believe that that was necessarily a requirement. It was just to get more detailed and more time.
>> My question was um you did ask for a more detailed plan and I'm asking if that's available to us.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay.
I think it's on was it in the on the screen earlier?
>> I think it was.
>> You guys would need to send an email if you send an email asking for that information or you can >> just give me your email and I'll send it to you.
>> We can send it to you.
>> Okay. Super. Thank you. Mhm.
>> Um, the last thing I would like to say is that of all the problems that there is about water, my problem is that if he gets too close to my hillside, which my driveway sits on, and my brother-in-law's driveway sits on, then we will lose access to our house and power to our homes because the power lines run up our driveway as well.
Can I uh add something, please?
>> If you'd state your name and your address, please.
>> Greg, is a green light on there on your microphone? You need to make sure that it's on.
>> Okay. Uh Greg Giles, I live at 6565 Rolling Fork Drive. um one of our neighbors who uh wasn't able to come here today emailed a letter to all all you guys and I just want to read a paragraph from it to for emphasis because I think it's very important and it specifically addresses the request for variance in the setback um the u the flatter area where the builder wants to move the the setback into um is a plane that holds a huge amount of water coming down the hill. As Jacob Underwood explained in the May 7th meeting, this basin is so efficient that only a modest amount of water is running down rolling Fort in the ditches.
Currently, uh during heavy rain, the soil in this plane is so soggy that one sinks into the mud almost to your knees. Uh if you put a house on top of that area, it is going to force a lot more water down to the street and create problems for the people downhill.
>> Okay. Appreciate it. You all are out of time. So we'll hear back from the applicant.
>> Thank you.
>> Yep. You're welcome. And Mr. Chair, if I may, legal counsel.
>> Y >> I just say the Metro code metro code does not have a specific requirements for experts here. the jud the um board is weighing the testimony and evidence presented to them to determine you know whether the conditions for variance are met.
>> Okay.
>> All righty.
>> Uh one quick point on here as Mr. Mr. Harus said these are these uh parcel maps are not super accurate.
>> Time going >> these partial maps are not super accurate, but you could measure from Mr. Underwood's property to the street and you'll see that his house is also below the 88 foot contextual setback. So the the the concern about ours being closer and blocking his I think is is unfounded. That that's one one point I'd make there. I think u other than that I'd open it for questions.
>> Questions?
>> Oh, I have one more point. Sorry. Uh we have started geotechnical analysis on this. We've dug test pits. There's 5T of coluial soils and the the storm water and geotechnical concerns. I mean that's something that we're actively addressing and we have, you know, licensed professionals working on that. That's that's but that's not really what's at hand in this in this meeting. We're just talking about staying off the slope.
>> Y >> any question?
>> Yes, I have a question. um because I'm not you know expert like uh my colleague sitting next to me. So could you tell me about your plan of the uh retaining wall?
>> So I am looking at the uh plan.
>> It says exhibit uh 01 and 02.
So >> can we pull that up?
uh delta submitted by this one and one has like a blue line you know uh the >> indicating uh location of the retaining wall.
>> Yes.
>> Is this the plan uh when you are putting your house closer to the street or is this the plan if you want to build the existing uh required setback? That is the plan. If we build the existing required setback, the retaining wall according to the engineers is not required with if we put it at 75 ft.
However, I would still like to amend the plans and add it for the drainage concerns that have been brought up. Um, but that retaining wall would then be 13t closer in and it would be much it would require much less cut to the slope.
>> Okay. So, this is the >> that's that right there.
And on that exhibit you can see the uh limits of disturbance uh at the contextual and then also the limits of disturbance with the the plat minimum of 75 ft foot if this variance is approved.
>> So just to confirm what we're looking at right here is if you built it to the contextual >> that's correct >> and you have a retaining wall that's roughly 8t high in one corner and six foot high in the other. Correct.
according to this.
>> According to this >> and then what you're proposing is bringing it roughly 15 feet forward, >> right?
>> Uh which you said would require no retaining wall.
>> Technically would require none, although I'd still like to do one because of the uh so I'd like to I plan to to make another revision to that and add some retaining wall. It'll of course be much shorter and require much less slope disturbance.
I think it would still be wise to do after discussing further with the geotechnical and structural engineers.
>> So could you tell me about uh your plan if it was pushed forward uh closer to the street uh as you asked as a variance and what is your plan for the retaining wall? I know it will be shorter, but would that going into uh setback area like a side setback or just behind the um >> not outside setback just behind the house? The most important area would be behind the the pool area.
>> So that area try to >> kind of secure that area. Yeah, it's not on the the it's not on the site plan draft of that one, but for if we imagine I would just say like let's just assume it's the same distance distance from the house and of course it'll be substantially shorter.
But again, that's more of that's more of a storm water, you know, we have to go through the storm water permit and that's more of a storm water usually.
you know, there's going to be they'll have their comments on that, of course, and we'll go back and forth and we'll determine that.
>> I mean, most of I mean, this is you in situations like this, you have to let the land tell you where to build the house, and you especially on topography like this.
I um >> Do you want me to close the public hearing? Yeah. Let me ask one one more question, then you close. The the um I think you said previously the proposed square footage was what? 4900 >> 48 or 4,900. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So this >> and that's not the footprint. It's a two-story house. So the footprint, you know, is is small is half that plus the the air the pool area and the the very small backyard area.
>> Two story with a flat roof or twotory with the regular roof. So you're getting double the square footage. I'm assuming garages on the first floor. There's a garage on the on the first floor. Um, so yeah, it'll be the total finished square footage is it's either 4830 or 4910 and the footprint of the home would be half that, but there's some additional on these exhibits that does say the total impervious. I believe the total impervious area including the driveway and including the backpool area >> 49.
>> It's 49. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And you know, the further you push it back, the more impervious service you get. you got 15 more feet of driveway and and you introduce a large structural retaining wall. Um, you know, so >> if there are no more questions, you can keep going. We'll just close the public hearing and >> Okay, no more questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you Joel.
>> I I mean, you know, if you look up definition of hardship and the zoning dictionary, you'll probably find this, right? And I certainly understand the neighbors concerns. Um, but there's means and methods for building this and making sure that additional storm water doesn't go off. It's off your property and and uh, you know, I don't think they're going to be blasting putting this in and I can't disturb anybody else's property. I mean, um, so I don't I certainly understand their worries and don't want to speak to the builder, but there's I think there's multiple ways this would be constructed that it would not be injurous to their properties and then they have to go through all the necessary, >> right, >> permits and inspections and all the other things. We're not the storm water board and they they have that protection.
>> I um I either heard something new or I saw it through different lens today last week or two weeks ago. This was a slam dunk for me. Um, but the wedged lot, the closeness of the neighbor, having the house in front of him on the side set back versus this plan, it's in line with the neighboring house.
It's off the side setback.
I mean, believe me, the the building in the hillside, I get 100%. Um, you know, that's it's you stated it best. It's >> Well, this exactly >> it's building 101. You you you let the land tell you where you go.
>> Yeah. Um, I'm picturing that neighbor's house on this drawing, and I'm seeing more space adjacent to his driveway that apparently is straddling the property line. I'm seeing more space for the conveyance of storm water to come down that side property line. Um, but I'm also seeing a retaining wall that's not in the other plan.
Um, I'm not following you on the side setback. The there's a front setback request of 13 ft, which is pretty modest. You're saying that >> Well, what what I'm saying is that, you know, the the size of the house is is irrelevant. That's that's that's out of the question. Um, the hardship is is obvious.
Um, it is very much a hardship. Um, but I'm looking at it through the injurious to neighboring properties lens now.
Um, and I'm seeing, you know, with the shape these wedge shaped lots, you know, having it up 15 feet is going to clip off that neighboring house a little bit.
And pushing it up 15 feet with this footprint puts that southern building line right on the setback.
>> Does that Does that make sense?
>> Well, it's I thought you were saying that it intruded into the setback.
>> No, no, no, no. It's It is It is It's creating space.
>> Joey, do you mind flipping to the other original just I think it's one for one.
>> It is kind of hard to because it's not Apple. I mean, it's not scale to scale, >> but if you if you go to the >> go to the other one, I think it's >> one up. No, no. Page page six or seven.
So, go back to the >> Oh, I just can't I can't see that from >> Oh, yeah.
>> Just >> Well, that that particular PDF only has one page on it.
>> Oh, >> that I was showing you.
>> It's page six of 22 of the packet. But >> hang on a second. Let me >> I mean, why he's pulling it up? It's wedge shape. you have an arc on on the front at that 15 foot relief that he's asking is fully used on one side and barely used on the neighboring side. Um so the tip of the house or the proposed footprint ends close to the contextual setback. It's roughly 86 feet according to this at uh or almost 88 feet at the neighbor side. But then you're >> this one.
>> No, it's this one. Joe.
>> Oh, >> would be helpful if it uh >> better.
>> I mean, I hear I hear where you're going, too. Um, >> hang on. But I think if you look at when Joey finds this, if you look at the arch and where it lands on the neighboring property and >> I think the the thing to me is that this area has a lot of topography on a lot of sites, right?
>> And so, you know, the the topography is one thing. I think the other thing that's unique about this is that there's only one other house on the culde-sac and that it is closer. So, I don't think, you know, 13 feet is a proportion um where the neighbor is already at that closer doesn't feel egregious to me as long as because it also helps with the the cut in the fill. I think my question is if you're still building a retaining wall, what's to keep you from continuing to push back into that hill? Um, but to me the the context of the culde-sac gives it a lot of um precedent here that it might not have in other parts of this area.
>> There it was, Joey. I heard all that.
And yeah, you know, this is built at the very front of the lot beyond the contextual setback. The neighbor's house with the winding driveway is built, I think, in the very back of the lot, well beyond the building restriction line of the rear setback, mainly because that's where the I mean, sure, the house was also there before all the stuff was over. It looks like a pretty wooded area to me, too. I mean, it's not the A lot of times with these setbacks, we have a straight street that, you know, you have the on smaller lots where the houses, it's much more noticeable when the fronts don't line up. I I just don't really see that here. I agree. And then the I mean if you look at it'd be nice if the same exact footprint was overlaid on both but you can you can see how on the one corner it's 75 on the very you know I guess you can call the upper corner but on the lower corner it's closer to 88 or 86 and if I'm overlaying his current plan here it's probably even less because this is just a box. So that's the neighbor side that you're talking about Michael.
>> It is. But um >> it is I I think I was speaking more to just the when the house slides back that direction >> you you alleviate some space along that southern property line.
>> Do we know what the neighbor's property how far they were back? I mean I can see it >> that's a great question. I mean, you know, you get an idea here, but I mean, to Ross's point, it's just lots houses are all over the place around there because they follow the contour of the of the mountain. Whether he I think pushing it further back makes the issue worse in my opinion. You're getting 15 feet more into the mountain and you're introducing 15 feet more of imperous service. So is uh not that that makes you know a big difference but and again I'm not a hydraulic engineer I'm not a >> but just >> and hydra and engineers will be looking at this I mean that's sort of thing right so is that a motion or you >> so let me stay I know which way you're going and I totally understand uh on the paper and theory and because I'm so familiar with that area because I I studied At the last meeting, it was my old district and I do know uh both side of the neighbor and I think what uh the proposal uh because of the topography and uh retaining wall uh that totally makes sense. I totally agree with it. Uh but uh I will be opposing. The reason is because if this we uh accept that various which yes uh in theory yes uh absolutely right but knowing that area knowing that soil and like my house is the other side of the hill and if I dig a foot I hit uh the rock and so every time when somebody you know build the house in our neighborhood you have to use not the blasting but like a chipping thing. So that will have a you know effect to the neighbor maybe you know not dramatic but it really has effect and also I know this area has soil is unstable. When we had 2010 flood we had landslide because of the makeup of that soil or really unique uh uh area. So knowing that because if we accept that variance it will go through next department uh storm water and all other department will rightfully you know uh go through all the uh approval process and so they do have property owner has absolutely right to uh you know build the house uh according to the court but knowing those process I just can't bring myself to say yes. I just wanted to state that and so thank you.
>> I hear you. I mean, but I guess I would challenge you on that say, but if they built it 15 ft back, all the same stuff could happen. I mean, so it's um and we don't, you know, they have a right to build. So uh well I'll make a motion that we approve uh the application that there is a hardship uh that the slope of this lot is uh the characteristics characteristics of this lot or the hardship. Uh so >> I will second >> there's a motion to second. Any further discussion?
All in favor?
All opposed?
Okay. So was that five? Okay. So that's five votes for one against. Okay. I believe that's our last case.
>> Yes sir. The board approves that on vote of five and one. And that is our last.
>> All righty.
>> Case for the day. Meet a journ.
This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
