Neighbors and the developer squared off at a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing over whether the front facade of a proposed house on the corner of Harding Place and General Lowry Drive is correctly identified in the building permit — a technical determination that affects which contextual setback the project must meet.

Appellant Frank Hodges, who lives at 4605 General Lowry Drive, told the board the permit was issued in error because Metro code for corner lots requires the front facade to be oriented to the shorter lot line and the submitted drawings show the primary elevation facing General Lowry rather than Harding. Hodges told the board he and nearby neighbors object because the proposed siting would put the primary entrance and “front” closer to General Lowry than other houses on the block, altering the block face. He asked the board to revoke the permit.

Zoning administrator Joey Hargis (on the record as the zoning administrator) defended his decision, saying the project’s revised elevations included architectural elements that met the code’s definition of a front facade; he highlighted that his December review had rejected the earlier drawings and that subsequent changes led him to approve the later submission. Builder counsel Emily Lam, of Winstead, argued the submitted elevation meets each element of the zoning code’s front-facade definition and urged the board to uphold the administrator’s permit.

Board members debated several legal and practical points: whether the code’s definition of “front facade” should be read by its listed architectural elements or by common usage (for example, whether a foyer and a formal entry determine the front); whether design choices could be used to shift a structure’s regulatory setbacks; and whether resolving ambiguity should favor the property owner’s use of the land. Several members said the question is fundamentally factual and depends on the submitted drawings and how the board interprets the code’s language.

Member Johnson recused from the case; with the remaining members split, a motion was made that the zoning administrator erred in issuing the permit. The motion did not produce a definitive four-vote outcome; the board concluded the case would remain on the docket and be reheard on July 17 so the full panel can review the record and the YouTube video and participate. The board’s clerk said the record will remain closed and that members who did not hear today’s testimony may vote at the rehearing after reviewing the record.

The dispute centers on Metro Code section 17.12.030(c)(6) (corner-lot front-facade orientation) and related definitions in the zoning code that describe a front facade as the vertical face with a primary entrance and architectural components such as columns, windows and porches.

Board members urged clarity in future code language, and several said the case exposed a broader tension between design flexibility and consistent application of setback rules on corner lots. The board did not revoke the permit at the hearing; instead it scheduled the continued appeal so absent members may participate and a final vote can be taken.