The Board of Zoning Appeals approved several variances by unanimous votes during its June 26 meeting, including a setback variance for a lakeside lot in an older subdivision and access variances that enable property owners to pursue building permits using existing drive configurations.

At the meeting, Ernest (Novelio) presented a variance request to reduce a side‑yard setback for a waterfront lot, citing topography, septic field constraints and the lot’s irregular shape. Staff confirmed that nearby hydrant fire‑flow readings exceeded 500 gallons per minute and that the proposed building would remain 50 feet from the nearest occupied residence. Following questions about original subdivision variances and current code (50‑foot front, 25‑foot side/rear in the district), the board voted 5‑0 to approve the requested setback for that specific site.

Michael Logan presented a separate access variance for a tract spanning roughly 10 acres divided into a 4.5‑acre and a 5‑acre section; he described long‑standing use of the drive and recent site improvements. Staff reported that septic approval had been obtained and that emergency vehicles had previously accessed the drive. After members confirmed the applicant had widened portions of the drive to county standards where applicable, the board approved the variance 5‑0.

Another variance request, presented by counsel for Michael (Wilcott/Walcott) on a farm split between Coffee and Bedford counties, sought permission to rely on an existing 50‑foot right of way (Nancy Lane) that has historically served the property. Speakers provided TVA maps and historical use data for the lane. The board approved that variance 5‑0 as well, noting that the structure to be built is actually sited in Bedford County but requires access through the Coffee County parcel.

Board members asked applicants to confirm platting, septic permits and that any necessary federal authorizations (where TVA land is crossed) be verified before final building permits are issued. In each case, staff said standard county permitting and inspections remain required and that approval was limited to the specific relief requested for the identified parcels.

The approvals clear the way for applicants to move forward with county building permits, subject to the normal inspections and any federal approvals where TVA right‑of‑way is implicated.