Board of Zoning Appeals approves consent items, OKs three variances and denies garage coverage request

The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals approved a seven-item consent agenda and issued rulings on four contested variance requests at its meeting. The board approved a revised site plan for a duplex on Sheffield Hills Drive, granted setback variances for two adjoining substandard lots on Finch/Main Street, and denied a variance that would have allowed a detached garage to exceed the code'allowed accessory coverage at 1205 McAlpine Avenue.

The board convened with routine meeting protocols and announced one deferred case and one withdrawn filing before taking up a consent agenda of seven applications the chair had recommended for approval. Cases on the consent agenda (2025-73, -74, -76, -77, -78, -79 and -81) were called; no parties appeared in opposition and the board approved the group by voice vote.

The meeting then moved to contested matters. For case 2025-60 (Sheffield Hills Drive), the applicant presented a revised site plan after the board had previously tied on a motion to deny at the July 17 meeting. The revised plan pushed the proposed structure back about 11 feet (from roughly a 31-foot setback to about 42.5 feet), changed the driveway location and specified pavers, and reflected stormwater consultations. The applicant, Ali Nuri, said after the revision, "If you guys approve it, we can build it. If you guys don't approve it, we don't know what to do, really." Board members who had earlier expressed concern over the proposed 31-foot setback said the revised plan and the site-specific hardships, including floodplain constraints and the lot configuration at the end of a cul-de-sac, were sufficient. The board approved the revised site plan (recorded in the meeting as a favorable vote; recorded discussion referenced a 5-0 vote on the final motion).

The board then considered two identical variance requests for adjoining substandard parcels (cases 2025-71 and 2025-72). Rose Nguyen, representing property owner Howard White, said the lots historically contained a dwelling and the applicants sought reduced front and rear setbacks (providing 12.5 feet at the front and 10 feet at the rear where the code requires 20 feet). The zoning administrator explained the lots are legal nonconforming building lots and that prior code enforcement records showed an earlier dwelling had existed on at least one lot. No opposition appeared. The board closed the public hearing and approved the variances, finding the lots'ize and prior development on the parcels supported a variance to allow single-family construction on the two substandard lots.

The board's final contested item, case 2025-75 (1205 McAlpine Avenue), asked to exceed accessory structure coverage to accommodate a 1,211-square-foot detached two-story garage on a property where the permitted total accessory footprint is 887 square feet (roughly 50% of the principal residence'footprint). Caitlin Paul of Delta Civil Engineering introduced the project and homeowner Steve Chavez described the proposal as a long, narrow detached garage with a second-floor personal gym. The applicant said the lot is narrow (described in the record as about 56 by 364 feet) and argued the configuration limited options for placing accessory structures without compromising existing entry points and windows.

Board members pressed on the nexus between the asserted hardship and the size of the requested deviation. Several members noted alternatives that would stay within the code'allowed coverage (including different garage dimensions, car lifts, or an attached structure) and referenced past decisions in which similar requests were denied. The board concluded the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship sufficient to justify a roughly 37% increase over the code'allowed accessory coverage and voted to deny the variance request. The motion to deny carried (the board recorded the motion as passing at the meeting; exact roll-call tallies were not specified in the record provided to staff).

The board's actions were procedural and used the authority cited at the hearing: "section 17 41 80 of the Metro code of law" and an invoked state law citation read at the meeting (transcript text: "section 13 7 2 0 7 of state law"). The planning staff noted that approved applicants should follow up with Metro planning and permitting staff for building-permit review and any stormwater or other conditions required by the permitting process.

Votes at a glance: 2025-73, -74, -76, -77, -78, -79, -81: approved on consent (no opposition present). 2025-60 (Sheffield Hills Drive): applicant'proposed site plan revised and approved after the applicant moved the building back roughly 11 feet (board discussion referenced a 5-0 vote on the final motion). 2025-71 and 2025-72 (two adjoining substandard lots): variances for front and rear setbacks granted (no opposition present; motion approved). 2025-75 (1205 McAlpine Avenue): variance to exceed accessory-building coverage denied (board determined applicant had not demonstrated sufficient hardship; final motion passed).

The board adjourned after the votes and reminded applicants to coordinate with Metro planning and permitting staff on next steps.