Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residency And Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows immediate reapplication for Cato Road owner after dispute over primary residence
Summary
The board found the zoning administrator’s evidence supported staff action but — after considering additional documents and neighbor letters presented at the hearing — reduced the waiting period to zero days so the appellant may reapply immediately.
The Metropolitan Short Term Rental Board of Appeals heard competing evidence about whether 4329 Cato Road is the primary residence of the permit holder and on May 28, 2025 voted to let the appellant reapply immediately.
Staff had denied renewal of an owner‑occupied STRP after public records and investigations suggested the appellant, Cameron Daniel, and her husband primarily reside at different addresses: Metro staff cited social media, voter records and business filings tied to the husband’s Thompson Station address as a basis for questioning the affidavit submitted with renewal materials. Zoning administrator Joey Hargis told the board he examines a “layered” set of publicly available facts to determine domicile.
Appellant attorney Seth Klein and Daniel presented multiple documents in the record — including 2022/2023 W‑2s, a driver’s license listing the Cato Road address, homeowners insurance, pay stubs and a set of neighbor letters vouching that Daniel lives at the Cato Road property and is regularly present. Daniel said she had registered to vote in Williamson County temporarily when her newborn required multiple weeks in a Nashville hospital NICU in late 2024, and later re‑registered in Davidson County.
Opposition testimony included a neighbor who said the neighborhood has seen illegal short‑term rental activity and that residents are concerned about weekend parties; that witness did not present documents tying the Cato Road property to full‑time rental activity. Staff said inspectors visited the property but could not conclusively determine occupancy from a public right‑of‑way because the house sits back from the street.
After extended discussion of the evidence and the statutory factors, the board found that while the zoning administrator had a reasonable basis for the original denial, the appellant had supplied additional documentation and neighbor statements that rebutted the presumption that spouses are domiciled together at the husband’s address. The board voted to reduce the waiting period to zero days so the applicant may file a new application immediately; staff will review the new submission under the owner‑occupied documentation rules in the STR ordinance.
The board urged the appellant to supply complete documentation when reapplying and reminded staff that the zoning administrator may require additional evidence when the residency question is contested.
