Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stream Buffer Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stormwater commission defers Hobbs Creek buffer variance, asks for stronger mitigation
Summary
The Metro Nashville Stormwater Management Commission deferred a variance request from the Hobbs Creek homeowners association that would have allowed patios, a fence and continued mowing inside a Zone 1 stream buffer at 2202B Hobbs Road, citing incomplete mitigation for added impervious area and questions about the hydrologic determination.
The Metro Nashville Stormwater Management Commission on Aug. (date not specified) deferred a variance request from the Hobbs Creek homeowners association to allow impervious structures, continued mowing and removal of trees within a Zone 1 stream buffer at 2202B Hobbs Road.
Commissioners said the mitigation plan presented so far — tree replacements and basic plantings — did not adequately address additional impervious area from a backyard patio and a fence and left unanswered questions about flood and water-quality calculations.
Stormwater staff told the commission that NPDES inspectors discovered unauthorized disturbances to the no-disturb riparian buffer during a routine inspection. Staff said the buffer became effective when the parcel redeveloped under grading permit 2016043549 and that enforcement action required restoration of the disturbed areas.
Van Oldham, a civil engineer and owner of Evergreen Infrastructure, who presented for the applicant, said the HOA members were not aware the common-area buffer applied to their yards and that the applicants have engaged Cumberland Land Design to prepare a planting plan. “All I do is stormwater mitigation, stormwater inspection, stormwater maintenance,” Oldham said, arguing the applicants intended to remediate the site and add plantings that could be an amenity to the community.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on multiple technical points: whether the added patio makes the site noncompliant with water-quality calculations, whether the fence lies inside the buffer and whether the hydrologic determination (HD) that produced differing stream scores could be appealed. Staff and the applicant noted the HDs were borderline — one firm, GEOS, scored the reach at about 18 while TDEC’s field evaluation scored it about 20.5 — and that the site’s urban setting and a downstream detention pond complicate the stream classification.
Several commissioners recommended mitigation beyond tree replacement: adding ground-layer and mid-layer vegetation, converting portions of nearby impermeable surfaces to pervious materials, and installing rainwater-harvesting or small detention measures on downspouts to reduce runoff from the patio. Commissioners also expressed concern about setting a precedent for multiple deferrals and emphasized that variance applicants should submit robust, engineered plans showing calculations before the commission can approve a variance.
After debate, the commission voted to defer consideration to allow the applicant to work with staff and provide revised, quantified mitigation and any necessary recalculations. The record shows staff advised that commission rules permit only a 30-day deferral under current bylaws, though additional procedural options (withdrawal and resubmission) exist.
The commission’s action leaves the enforcement matter active: the disturbed buffer remains subject to required restoration until the commission receives and rules on revised plans or the applicant withdraws and resubmits a fuller application.
