Murfreesboro BZA denies variance for two‑story garage at 2114 Battleground Drive

The City of Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-0 on July 23 to deny a variance request that would have allowed an approximately 19½‑by‑40‑foot, two‑story accessory building to be constructed in front of the principal residence at 2114 Battleground Drive.

The applicant requested a 9‑foot reduction from the 35‑foot front setback required by the zoning ordinance and a variance from the ordinance provision that detached accessory structures must be at least 10 feet behind the front of the principal structure. The proposed building would include a garage, bathroom, golf simulator, lounge, office and storage — roughly 760 square feet, according to the applicant’s presentation.

Staff recommended denial after reviewing the application against the five variance criteria in the zoning ordinance. Planning staff told the board the property is a conforming RS‑10 lot — roughly 49,057 square feet as stated by staff — with frontage of about 193 feet along Battleground Drive and approximately 258–280 feet along Bond Court. Staff said the demolished carport and storage building on the site were nonconforming but that the applicant provided no documentation showing storm damage met the zoning rule allowing repair when damage is less than 75 percent of value; without proof of that damage, staff concluded the prior nonconforming status was forfeited when the structures were demolished and that the proposed replacement must be conforming.

In his presentation, planning staff outlined reasons the application failed the variance tests, including that the lot does not have a narrow or unusual shape or topography that would create an extraordinary hardship, the claimed hardship appeared to be self‑created, and approval could undermine the intent of the setback rules for corner lots by creating sight‑distance, utility and precedent concerns.

The applicant’s representative, Matthew Rountree, argued the site is unique because of a mature vegetative screening line along Bond Court and long‑standing precedent: he said the prior accessory structures had existed for more than 30 years and that the owners designed a major remodel (described in the record as roughly a $4 million renovation) with the expectation that additional covered storage was appropriate on that side of the house. Rountree offered to add additional masonry screening if the board required more permanent screening.

An inspector, Jeff Bola, told the board that when the slab was exposed it showed no footer and that the owner had not retained photographic proof of the limb damage that was said to have cracked the prior structure. A single nearby neighbor, Mike Pruitt, spoke in support of the project at the public hearing.

Board members debated the five statutory findings required for a variance. Commissioners noted the practical difficulty that two front setbacks create on corner lots but expressed concern that two‑frontage lots are common across the city; several members said that reliance on a prior nonconforming structure or on mature vegetation would not, by itself, satisfy the ordinance standards because those conditions were created by past owners. The board concluded at least one required finding had not been met and voted to deny the variance.

Roll call following the motion produced three ayes — Mister Bachelor, Vice Chair Halliburton and Chair Sherry Young — and the motion to deny carried. Staff noted for the record that BZA approval would not constitute building‑permit approval; permits would still be required if future action changed the decision.

The BZA closed the matter and moved on to staff reports and other business.