BZA grants one‑year renewal for Gay Winds property amid dispute over grandfathered short‑term rental status

The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals granted a one‑year short‑term rental renewal for property at 604 Gay Winds Drive (case 4332), but members emphasized the decision arose from unusual factual circumstances and should not set a precedent. The board limited the permit to a maximum of eight guests and required the applicant to file a business plan within the zoning office.

The case hinged on whether the property’s prior short‑term rental use survived a 2022 ownership transfer. The applicant, Dave Steeneprink, said he was told before purchase that the prior use was grandfathered. Staff and board members discussed Tennessee Code Annotated provisions that can limit or void grandfathering when a property changes hands or the nonconforming use ceases.

Steeneprink told the board he was “requesting to reconfirm the grandfathered status that was previously confirmed by the chief zoning administrator to us prior to purchasing the property,” and presented a realtor’s letter indicating county staff had been consulted. Karen Murphy, the zoning administrator, said she had told callers in 2022 that the use appeared to be grandfathered, but later learned of a state “legacy clause” noted in Tennessee Code Annotated that could affect that status. She said she did not recall the earlier conversations at the time they happened.

Staff reported the property had operated as a short‑term rental before the county’s 2018 short‑term rental resolution, but the property’s use had not continued without interruption: staff said the operation had ceased for some months after the sale. Given the complex mix of facts and the applicant’s testimony, the board treated the request as a special case.

A board member moved to approve the renewal for one year, set the maximum occupancy at eight guests, and require submission of a business plan reflecting the conditions. The motion noted the approval was “because this is a very, very special set of circumstances that we would not normally approve.” The motion carried; the board recorded that the approval is time‑limited and subject to re‑evaluation if complaints appear.

Board members discussed a broader related process issue during the hearing: they approved a separate policy change at the meeting stating the board will not accept “new recollections” as new evidence in future cases and that any reliance on staff communications should be documented in writing or email.

The applicant was reminded to reapply in advance of the one‑year expiration if he seeks renewal and to ensure documentation of caretaker information and contact details is on file.