Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on Sunnymeade setback variance after neighbors cite flooding and property-line concerns
Summary
The Metro Board of Zoning Appeals did not grant a variance to allow a new house closer to Sunnymeade Drive; the case will return to the board’s June 20 meeting after a motion to approve failed. Neighbors testified about repeated flooding and disputed property lines; the applicant said the design addresses flood risk.
The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday failed to approve a setback variance for a proposed single-family house at 1295 Sunnymeade Drive, sending the case back to the board’s June 20 hearing for another vote.
The applicant, representing Sway Estates, asked the board to reduce a required 33-foot front setback (the block-face average) to about 21 feet so a new house could be moved forward of a creek and away from a floodway buffer. Metro zoning administrator Joey Hargis presented the case and explained the variance was sought because “because of the floodway buffer zone that’s required by Metro Water” the applicant contends the house must be placed forward to avoid stormwater impacts.
Applicant Brandon Scott, representing Sway Estates, said the proposal would raise the house and strengthen its foundation: “we're gonna build it up about 4 feet off the ground, 5 feet off the ground, and get the house a little closer to the street,” and that moving the house forward would let future owners keep vehicles out of floodwaters.
Neighbors opposed the variance. Katie Williams, of 1252 Sunnymeade Drive, said she has seen flooding in the area several times and worried the new house “is probably going to push more water into the other neighbor's houses.” Neighbor Vicky Yep said she only closed on her home last November and raised a separate property-boundary concern: during testimony she said she believed some yard elements (a fence and an HVAC unit) sit on the adjoining property and that she was pursuing legal advice.
Board members debated hardship and neighborhood impacts. One member said the applicant had demonstrated a hardship caused by the creek and flood zone; another member said the proposed home is “not contextual” and would be “injurious to the neighbor.” A motion to grant the variance was made and seconded but did not pass on the floor; the board recorded the result as a failed motion and left the item on the agenda for June 20 so absent members may review the hearing recording and become eligible to vote.
Procedurally, Hargis told the applicant the public hearing portion is closed and that no additional public testimony will be accepted before the June 20 proceeding; the board explained that members who were not present may review the recorded hearing and vote at the later session. The applicant does not need to re-present the case at the re-hearing; the June 20 session is described as a revote with eligibility for two members who missed June 5.
The board’s jurisdiction and the appeal references for the case were presented as Metro code sections cited by staff during the hearing. The final action on June 20 will determine whether the setback variance is approved or denied.
