Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodway Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stormwater commission allows parking pad in Eaton Creek floodway with mitigation and one dissent
Summary
The Metro Stormwater Management Commission approved leaving a concrete pad inside the Eaton Creek floodway at 4324 Cato Road, conditioned on a mitigation plan including a cistern, revegetation/no-mow areas and a recorded maintenance plan; one commissioner opposed.
Get email alerts on the Floodway Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Metro Nashville Stormwater Management Commission on Tuesday voted to allow an existing concrete pad in the Eaton Creek floodway at 4324 Cato Road to remain, provided the property owner completes a mitigation plan that includes a subsurface cistern for irrigation, revegetation of a triangular parcel south of the pad and a recorded maintenance plan and signage for a designated buffer area.
The commission’s decision matters because the pad lies in a regulated floodway and the case raised questions about permit routing and how incomplete information from the city’s permit help desk affected the homeowner’s actions. The commission approved keeping the pad with conditions; Commissioner Simpson cast the lone opposing vote.
Doug Sloan, attorney for the property owner, told the commission the owner purchased the home and later discovered a use-and-occupancy (UO) issue and asked the contractor whether a permit was needed for the work. Sloan said the contractor contacted the Metro Codes help desk and was told no permit was required. “I think the average citizen expects that the codes help desk, when you go to ask what permits you need, should be able to tell you you may not need a building permit, but given where you are, you might wanna go talk to stormwater before you start construction,” Sloan said.
Michael Garrigan of Dillon Associates described mitigation measures the applicant agreed to add if the pad is allowed: a subsurface cistern to collect runoff from the pad for irrigation, removal of vertical obstructions that had previously been on the pad, tree plantings, and a no-mow/native revegetation area in a triangular section south of the pad. Garrigan said the pad itself has been reduced to function as an overflow parking pad and that the owner removed fencing and lights to eliminate obstructions to flow.
Commissioners debated whether the owner had demonstrated an “undue hardship” required for variances and whether allowing the pad would set an undesirable precedent of permitting impervious surfaces in floodways. Commissioner Fulmer, who asked about the pad’s distance from the creek and the topo, said the mitigation proposals — especially the no-mow revegetation strip and additional tree plantings — would yield a long-term benefit to the stream corridor. "If they had never reached out, I think it goes away. Since they reached out, I think it's worth letting it stay if we get all that buffer," Fulmer said.
Staff described the regulatory history: the property initially had an interior renovation permit but later required an addition permit, which triggered additional floodplain compliance work. Metro staff said some noncompliant features the prior builder installed have been removed, and the owner continues to work with staff to address other outstanding UO and flood-compliance items.
The commission’s motion to approve required that the owner collaborate with staff to produce a revised mitigation plan documenting: the cistern sized to capture runoff from the impervious pad, revegetation/no-mow areas in the triangular parcel south of the pad and a recorded long-term maintenance plan. Commissioners also amended the motion to require one sign marking the buffer at the midpoint of the northern boundary; the amended motion passed with one no vote recorded by Commissioner Simpson.
The vote was recorded during the meeting and the commission directed staff to finalize permit conditions with the applicant and document the mitigation in a revised plan and recorded maintenance covenant. The commission noted staff would inspect the site to ensure the mitigation elements are installed and that future permits (including any addition permits) would be reviewed against the same standards.
The commission’s approval does not change outstanding UO or addition-permit requirements; staff said additional permits and construction corrections remain under review. The applicant and staff agreed to return final mitigation details to staff for incorporation into a recorded plan to survive future ownership changes.

