The Franklin City Board of Zoning Appeals on July 3 denied three variance requests for the property at 417 Forest Street, rejecting requests to allow (1) a 2-foot-6-inch encroachment into a required seven-foot side setback for the principal building, (2) a 2-foot-6-inch encroachment into a required five-foot side setback for an appurtenance on an accessory structure, and (3) a reduction of the lot’s required Landscape Surface Area (LSA) to 26 percent from the R4 requirement of 40 percent.

Staff described a complicated compliance history in which the house, accessory structure and paved areas built in 2022 did not match the building permit approved in November 2022. Inspections followed, a red sign was posted in September 2024 noting no certificate of occupancy, and the property later entered foreclosure. The bank sold the property; the current owner, Brian Biglin, purchased it in March 2025 and later asked for variances to address the zoning discrepancies.

Staff told the board the principal house sits about 4 feet 8 inches from the east side lot line (required minimum: seven feet), leaving a gap of approximately 6.5 feet between the two adjacent houses. The patio attached to the accessory structure is about 2.5 feet from the side lot line (required minimum: five feet), and the lot’s calculated LSA is 26 percent, short of the 40 percent requirement. Staff said the approved building permit showed an approximately 2,000-square-foot house and permeable pavers in areas that were later installed as impervious concrete, and staff concluded the deviations from the approved plans were self‑imposed by the prior builder rather than caused by the lot’s physical condition.

Shanna McCoy, the City of Franklin zoning and floodplain administrator (named in staff timeline), informed the record that a certificate of occupancy would not be issued until a variance is granted or the structure is moved or demolished and rebuilt; she advised replacement of impervious paving with pervious material to meet LSA requirements. Staff recommended denial of all three variance requests because, in staff’s analysis, none of the three variance criteria under the zoning ordinance were met: the conditions were not extraordinary; the hardship was self‑imposed; and granting the variances would impair the intent of the ordinance, including buffer distance and stormwater/runoff protections.

Owner Brian Biglin told the board he bought the property at foreclosure and said the bank had not disclosed the zoning issues. Biglin said his post‑purchase research showed no public record that would have revealed the encroachments, that a red tag previously posted had been removed, and that he had purchased adjacent lots as an “insurance policy.” He told the board demolishing and rebuilding would cost an estimated $1,084,000. Biglin asked the board to consider that the violations were not caused by him.

Neighbors spoke in opposition. Juliet Lydell (427 Forest Street) and others raised concerns about increased impervious surface, future drainage impacts, and precedent for others to build closer to lot lines. Mike Derryberry, a Forest Street homeowner, argued for consistent enforcement across the neighborhood.

Board member Scales moved to deny all three variance requests, with Board member Smith seconding. In deliberations members repeatedly cited the record that the violations were self‑created by earlier construction and expressed concern for precedent, neighbor buffer space and stormwater runoff. The motion to deny carried unanimously: Scales — deny; Langley — deny; Smith — deny; Flushauer — deny.

The board’s denial leaves the owner with several options discussed at the hearing: (a) remove or alter the encroaching elements to comply with required setbacks and LSA, (b) consolidate adjacent lots (which staff said could resolve some setbacks but would require removing existing homes on consolidated lots if they exist), or (c) seek other remedial building- or land-use actions. Staff advised that replacement of impervious surfaces with pervious materials and corrections to building placement or lot consolidation would be the typical routes to bring the property into compliance.