Owner of nonconforming Rade's Cove Road lot asks board for setbacks and lot‑size variance to allow home

A property owner identified in the meeting packet as Mr. Mills asked the Sumner County Board of Zoning Appeals for variances to allow residential construction on an irregular, nonplatted lot along Rade's Cove Road. Planning staff told the board the lot does not meet the county's minimum 40,000‑square‑foot requirement for the Rural Preservation zoning district and that a front‑yard setback applicable to the site effectively requires a 60‑foot setback because the road is a main arterial; staff said the owner is requesting a reduction of the front setback to allow a building envelope.

"This lot is not platted and therefore not legal, based on the chapter," Planning staff said while reviewing the Zoning Compliance application included in the board packet. Staff said the lot was created historically by the taking of railroad right‑of‑way in the late 19th century, is irregular in shape and has extreme rear topography (a bluff) that, together with a creek that requires a 30‑yard buffer and the location of an existing septic system, leaves only a small triangular building envelope for a home.

Staff described the building envelope shown in the packet as roughly 1,200 square feet on paper and said some house iterations could be as small as about 700 square feet to fit within that pad. Planning staff said earlier in the review the request had been characterized as a reduction from a 60‑foot front setback to 40 feet, but that given rights‑of‑way and engineering constraints the realistic request for the addition and accessory structure is from 60 feet to 24 feet.

Richard Gray, a surveyor listed in the packet, introduced himself to the board and said he would answer questions about the property survey. "I'll answer any questions y'all may have about the problem," Richard Gray said.

Staff reviewed county standards for nonconforming lots and noted that Sumner County subdivision regulations require lots created after the zoning adoption date to be platted before obtaining building permits; the presenter referenced the county zoning adoption date as July 9, 1973 in that explanation. Staff also told the board a state review would not evaluate soils for the site unless the zoning process indicated approval was possible, and that the state could require soils amendments if approvals proceed.

Planning staff cautioned the board about precedent: several county properties are nonconforming in similar ways, and a change in the minimum lot‑size enforcement could affect many parcels. Staff said no evidence was presented at the hearing that granting the variance would diminish public safety or property values; the packet included a proposed plat showing a small building pad and a driveway that would require state or county engineering approval because of proximity to an intersection and soils constraints.

The board opened the matter for public hearing; the transcript does not record a final vote. Staff presented three sample motions for the board’s consideration: find that the variance standards are met and approve the request with standard conditions (including obtaining required permits and recording a plat where required), deny the variance, or defer the item for more information.