Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals grants most variances, denies short‑term rental and tax refund requests

The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a range of zoning variances and one conditional use on Thursday, while denying a short‑term rental request and an adequate‑facilities tax refund.

The board approved requests that included accessory‑structure setbacks and heights, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), an agricultural‑zone dog kennel with a 12‑dog limit, and a paving exemption for an industrial storage site; it denied a short‑term rental appeal for a property of 1.96 acres and a refund request for a duplicated adequate‑facilities tax payment.

Why it matters: the board’s decisions will affect property use and development patterns across the county — from rural residential lots to industrial storage — and establish conditions (for example, a 12‑dog limit and a requirement to use a dust‑suppressing surface) that property owners must meet before permits or occupancy are finalized.

Most contested item: a request by Daniel C. Hale (case 4314) to operate a dog kennel for boarding and training in an A‑1 agricultural zone prompted the most discussion. Staff recommended denial because the facility did not meet the county rule that kennels be at least 500 feet from neighboring residential or agricultural property lines. After public comment and board debate the board approved the kennel but limited the facility to a maximum of 12 dogs at any one time; the motion passed 3–2.

Key decisions and details

Votes at a glance - Case 4312 (Ronald Boggs, 10905 Murfreesboro Road): Approved — variances to acknowledge existing accessory structures so a proposed accessory building and an addition can be completed. (Motion: approve; outcome: approved.) - Case 4313 (Patricia Fleming, 1603 Bridal Street): Approved — variance to place a swimming pool while acknowledging existing accessory structures; staff noted the lot was created in 1989 and could not recommend approval, but the board granted the variance. (Motion: approve; outcome: approved.) - Case 4314 (Daniel C. Hale, 474 Noakes Road): Approved, limited — request for a dog kennel and variances from the 500‑foot separation rule; board approved with a 12‑dog occupancy limit after votes totaling 3 in favor, 2 opposed. (Motion: approve with condition limiting dogs to 12; outcome: approved 3–2.) - Case 4315 (Robert Smith / Tyler Hall, 9880 Central Pike): Approved — ADU addition attached to an existing garage; board approved. (Motion: approve; outcome: approved.) - Case 4316 (Jamie Burrows, 4925 Benders Ferry Road): Approved — variances for front and rear yard setbacks on an irregular (flag) lot; board approved. (Motion: approve; outcome: approved.) - Case 4317 (Alicia Hicks Settles, 1826 Tolliver Trace): Approved — size variance for a 931‑square‑foot ADU granted by the board based on the applicant’s testimony that the extra space is required for ADA‑related accommodations; the height variance was withdrawn after the applicant testified the ADU roof pitch and materials will match the main house. (Motion: approve based on ADA reasonable accommodation testimony; outcome: approved.) - Case 4318 (Paul Moody, 11262 Central Pike): Approved — accessory structure height variance (to permit a 25‑foot building); board approved. (Motion: approve; outcome: approved.) - Case 4319 (Mountain of Fire Miracle Ministries / Janet Mayer, 13135 Central Pike): Approved — church use on appeal in R‑1 was approved; board made the applicant’s business plan part of the approval and noted septic/parking expansions would require planning commission review. (Motion: approve with business plan as condition; outcome: approved.) - Case 4321 (Pruedall Homes / Jeff Hayslip, for Michelle Nagel): Denied — request for refund of a duplicated $5,000 adequate‑facilities tax payment; staff explained refund policy requires a 30‑day request and the ordinance provides no later refund mechanism; board denied. (Motion: deny; outcome: denied.) - Case 4323 (Clyde Roundtree, 228 Bluegrass Circle): Denied — short‑term rental use for an ADU on a 1.96‑acre lot; county ordinance requires a 2‑acre minimum for short‑term rentals in R‑1; board denied 4–1. (Motion: deny for nonconformance with 2‑acre minimum; outcome: denied 4–1.) - Case 4324 (Jack Wallace / Barnes Store representative Austin Christian, 712 Heritage Road): Approved (amended) — variance requested for west side yard setback; applicant amended the requested relief during testimony to a 4‑foot variance (structure 4 feet from property line); board approved the amended variance. (Motion: approve (amended to 4 feet); outcome: approved.) - Case 4325 (Infrastructure Precast Inc. / Nathaniel Palmer, 354 Clemens Road): Approved (with conditions) — variance from the paving requirement in the I‑2 (industrial) district to allow expanded gravel storage of precast concrete structures; board approved with direction that staff require a dust‑suppressing surface ("dustless material") and increased screening/landscaping where the noncommercial property abuts the storage area; the expansion will require a site plan before the Planning Commission. (Motion: approve with conditions on surfacing and screening; outcome: approved.)

Discussion items and staff notes - Staff repeatedly reminded applicants that building permits and inspection sequences must be followed: multiple cases included the note that a setback inspection was not completed before framing or construction started, which led to stop‑work directions and the requirement to appear before the board. The board cited those inspection sequences when reviewing cases where structures were already built closer to property lines than permitted. - ADU standards and ADA accommodations: staff said the zoning ordinance does not recommend size or height variances for ADUs in general, but the board has in prior cases granted variances when ADA accessibility is documented; in case 4317 the board relied on the applicant’s testimony describing a medical and mobility need and on the applicant’s confirmation that exterior materials and roof pitch would match the main house to waive the height variance. - Kennel separation requirements: staff noted kennels in A‑1 are permitted on appeal but must be sited 500 feet from any agricultural or residential parcel line; the Hale kennel did not meet that standard on all sides, prompting the board to discuss measured distances and then approve with an occupancy cap of 12 dogs. - Paving/exemption in industrial areas: staff recommended, and the board imposed, additional screening and a requirement that the applicant work with staff to choose a dust‑suppressing surface if paving is not required for the storage area; the board explicitly conditioned approval on those requirements and on planning‑commission review of the site plan.

What the board directed next - Applicants who receive conditional approvals must finalize site plans, provide any required septic or building permits, and meet conditions (for example the business plan for the church, the 12‑dog limit and contact information for the kennel, dustless surfacing and landscaping for the industrial site) before a final permit is issued.

Ending - The board recessed briefly during the meeting and scheduled deferred items for the end of the agenda; one deferred item (case 4323) was heard later and denied. Several applicants were reminded that if they bring revised plans that meet ordinances (for example increasing lot size to 2 acres or pulling accessory structures farther off property lines), they may return for review.

Selected direct quotes (attributed) - "I was given a permit." — Daniel C. Hale, on inspections and the kennel construction process. - "If you can get to 2 acres, come back and see us." — Board chair, to Clyde Roundtree after denial of the short‑term rental request.