Sumner County BZA hears complex ownership dispute over double-wide, new house and ADU rules

Sumner County’s Board of Zoning Appeals on an evening hearing discussed a complex case involving an 8.3-acre parcel on Willows Branch/Willsbrands Road where a new single-family house is under construction while a manufactured double-wide owned by an absentee co-owner remains on the same lot.

Planning staff told the board the parcel, identified in materials as MAP 143 (parts of 40) and referenced at 1315 C Willsbrands Road in the public notice, was the subject of a zoning compliance application that originally required the existing manufactured home be removed before a certificate of occupancy would be issued for the new house. The staff presentation said the applicants later requested the manufactured dwelling be allowed to remain as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

The dispute centers on ownership and code limits. The staff presentation said the manufactured dwelling is recorded in the name of Molly Pierce, who is not reachable, while Louie and Lauren Pierce are building the new house and listed as owners of the rest of the property. Staff noted that Sumner County’s zoning rules allow one principal dwelling on a lot smaller than 15 acres and permit only one ADU per lot. The ADU process requires a recorded instrument signed by all property owners; staff said that cannot be completed without the absentee owner’s signature.

“The ownership status of the single-family structure in question ... makes compliance with the zoning standards difficult, if not impossible,” the planning staff said during the presentation.

Property owners Louie and Lauren Pierce said the new house was intended to replace the older manufactured home and that family circumstances left them unable to contact Molly Pierce. Louie Pierce told the board he had evidence that utilities to the manufactured home were disconnected and asked the board to allow the new home to be certified for occupancy while the manufactured home remained on site until the ownership issue is resolved.

Marshall Wright of the county building/codes office described options the county could use in enforcement and permitting. “Before a temporary CO can be issued, the house has to be considered substantially complete,” Marshall said, and explained temporary certificates of occupancy are commonly used for minor outstanding items (for example, yard work), typically for 30–60 days, but that relying on a temporary CO to resolve a fundamental zoning problem can leave unresolved issues in place long-term.

Planning staff presented four options for the BZA’s guidance: require removal of the manufactured dwelling per the original approval; require revision of the new house plans to eliminate the ADU already built into that structure; allow the structures to remain and grant a variance to the one-principal-dwelling rule; or propose another solution. Staff noted variances are allowed under state statute only where exceptional conditions (shape, topography, or other extraordinary circumstances) justify relief.

Board members discussed practical and legal limits. Several members were concerned about setting precedent for variances and emphasized the need to document any exceptional circumstances if a variance were granted. The board and staff raised quiet-title or other civil processes as options for the property owners to resolve ownership rights with the absentee co-owner.

By the end of the discussion the board agreed on a set of directions rather than a formal variance: have the county marshal or building/codes office tag the existing manufactured dwelling as uninhabitable/uninhabited, allow county staff to complete permitting and issue the appropriate permits and certificate of occupancy for the substantially complete new house, coordinate with utilities to prevent reconnection if the structure is illegal, and return the matter to the BZA for an update in six months. The board’s direction was framed as staff guidance rather than a formal variance or an appeal decision.

The board’s discussion repeatedly distinguished between (a) discussion of options and legal constraints, (b) potential directions to staff, and (c) permanent formal actions such as granting a variance — the latter was not approved at the hearing.

The board did not record a formal vote on a variance during the hearing; instead, the panel provided staff and enforcement offices with the directions described above and requested a status report in approximately six months.

Background: county materials presented at the hearing noted the ADU permit process was established in 2020 and that county zoning generally limits one principal dwelling per lot under 15 acres and one ADU per lot. The staff packet included photographs and a plot plan showing the manufactured dwelling toward the southern portion of the lot and a new home under construction toward the north.

The BZA indicated potential next steps for the property owners included civil remedies (for example, quiet-title litigation) to clarify ownership, seeking a variance from the BZA if exceptional conditions can be documented, or complying with the original permit condition that the older structure be removed before permitting the new home’s occupancy. The board emphasized that any permanent change to the county’s one-dwelling rule would require clear, documented justification consistent with state variance standards.

The board then moved on to other items on its agenda.