Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals approves multiple variances, denies jurisdiction on right-of-way fence, punts one close setback case

The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals on March 6 approved the consent docket and a series of individual variances and special-exception requests, dismissed one appeal because the disputed fence sits in public right of way, and continued a closely contested setback question for further review.

The board, led by Metro zoning administrator Joey Hargis, opened the hearing and handled the consent docket first. Hargis said the chair had reviewed the record and recommended several cases for consent; the board voted to adopt the consent agenda and those cases were approved. Hargis reminded applicants on consent they could follow up with codes administration for building permits.

Why it matters: The board’s votes move multiple private construction projects and rule interpretations toward permitting or further review. Dismissal of the fence appeal underscores the board’s limit: it cannot grant variances for improvements that lie on public property.

Most important decisions

- Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: The board dismissed an appeal involving a fence after a survey showed the fence encroached in the city right of way. The board voted to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction; the record shows Metro Legal and staff concluded the board cannot grant variances for improvements on public property. Attorney Lance Baker asked the board to consider the application on due-process grounds, but the board voted 4–0 to dismiss the appeal.

- Tiny-house and accessory-structure variance approved: The board granted a variance for Beverly Boswell, owner of property on Highway 100, to allow a 20-foot setback from Highway 100 consistent with the survey she submitted. Hargis summarized the survey evidence and members who had reviewed the earlier hearing agreed the lot’s triangular shape and floodplain considerations supported a variance; the motion passed 5–0 with the condition that the variance match the survey on file.

- Ashton Avenue duplex case remains unresolved after a tie: National Quality Homes LLC asked to retain an already-built duplex unit that sits closer than the R-10 side setback allows. Developers and contractors told the board they had added an engineered French-drain system and provided a long-term maintenance plan; neighbors said the system was not a French drain and reported standing water and foundation damage. A motion to approve Unit B as built failed on a tie vote, so the case will return to the board on April 3 so members who missed prior hearings can review the February 6 record and participate.

- Kennel/special-exception approved at Seymour Hollow Road: The board granted a special exception for a kennel-style operation at 5047 Seymour Hollow Road, finding the applicant’s site and operational conditions met the code’s distance and nuisance controls. Neighbors submitted video and testimony that raised concerns about dogs running at large and whether training activities were appropriate for the neighborhood; the board voted 4–0 to approve the special exception with conditions described in the application.

- Garage height variance approved on Rosebank Avenue: Evan Dunning received a variance to raise an existing detached garage to 21.5 feet in R-10 zoning. Board members noted the property’s configuration and the fact that a full accessory dwelling (a “DADU”) could be built to greater height with plumbing and occupancy rights; after weighing the standards, the board approved the variance 4–3.

- Front-porch cover approved after stop-work finding on Loney Drive: A homeowner who had roofed an existing front porch and added a modest extension sought a variance to keep the covered porch. The board approved the small setback variance and required the owner to obtain the pending building inspections and permits; the approval included a condition that the porch remain unenclosed in the future.

- McFerrin Avenue infill variance approved: An irregular lot created when Ellington Parkway was built required a setback variance to place a small single-family house. The board granted the variance, finding the lot’s shape and state right-of-way taking created a hardship that was not self-imposed.

- Rooftop addition on Greenwood Avenue approved: An item-D appeal to allow a rooftop deck and minor covered rooftop element at a commercial property adjacent to Porter and Greenwood was found appropriate under the code; the board approved the design as an allowed change to a nonconforming structure.

What the board did not finish: The side-setback case on Ashton Avenue remains on the docket because the vote tied; the board scheduled further consideration April 3 and instructed absent members to watch the February 6 hearing transcript before voting.

Voices from the hearing

- Joey Hargis, Metro zoning administrator: “The board will go through all cases set for public hearing today and then vote and discuss on your case.”

- Beverly Boswell, applicant for the Highway 100 variance: “I have everything you asked for.”

- Cheryl Cheese, neighbor in the Ashton Avenue case: “A French drain was never put in. I’m home all day... What they put in these properties, they hook the drain to the gutter. That’s not a French drain.”

- Jason Holliman, attorney for the kennel applicant: “We provided to you [a plan] that meets the requirements. We plan to follow the operational requirements, such as feces removal.”

Next steps: Several cases were deferred or withdrawn before the hearing and will return to the board later, and the Ashton Avenue matter will appear on the April agenda for another vote if participating members choose to do so. The board announced a rules-procedure review meeting on March 20 (public meeting, not a hearing).

Methodology and transparency: This article summarizes testimony and recorded votes in the Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing transcript for March 6, 2025. Quotes are verbatim in the transcript and are attributed to the speakers who made them in the record.

Ending note: The board repeatedly reminded applicants that permit and inspection processes remain required after land-use approvals; approvals here generally direct applicants to complete building permits, inspections and any required planning-commission plat work before construction proceeds.