Nolensville board denies variance to allow second water meter for accessory dwelling at 202 Stonebrook Court

The Town of Nolensville Board of Audit and Appeal voted on a variance request to allow a separate water meter for an accessory dwelling at 202 Stonebrook Court and the motion to grant the variance failed.

The request, presented by a builder for Drees, sought permission to tie in two water meters already installed on the lot so the accessory dwelling would have its own meter rather than being served through the primary residence. The board’s discussion centered on a town zoning rule that accessory dwelling units must be connected to the primary residence and a utility district rule limiting one tap or meter per residence.

Andrew Zender, area and construction manager for Drees, told the board, “we're just seeking permission to go ahead and tie those in,” saying two meters were already on site and were installed before Drees began work. Kenton Curtis, market manager for Drees, said the homeowner had engaged utilities early and that some utilities had installed infrastructure before town staff reviewed the final plan.

Planning and codes staff explained the tension between the town ordinance and the Nolensville College Grove Utility District’s tapping policy. A planning staff member read from the utility district guidance that “a single tap shall entitle a customer to subscribe for water service to one and only one residence on the tract. If a second residential dwelling unit has received water service on the same tract … a second tap must be obtained,” and staff said the utility district interprets the existing setup as two separate residences for their rules.

Town staff and the board referenced the zoning ordinance language that treats accessory dwelling units as connected living quarters and said the town’s ordinance, adopted in 2023, does not count accessory dwelling units toward density and anticipates they be internally connected to the primary dwelling. The town attorney's interpretation of state variance law, as summarized by staff, said a variance may be granted only when strict application would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship, is the minimum necessary relief, and will not harm the public good.

Staff told the board the town lacks clear ground under the ordinance to grant the requested variance. Staff and the board advised two alternate paths: petition the Nolensville College Grove Utility District to treat the lot as a single residence with one meter, or ask the Board of Commissioners to amend the ordinance to allow the requested meter arrangement more broadly. Staff also said, if two separate building permits exist, the town could potentially issue a certificate of occupancy for the main structure but not for the accessory structure until the meter issue is resolved; if the accessory structure cannot be legally occupied, it would need to be converted to storage or otherwise brought into compliance.

At the vote, the motion to approve the variance failed. The applicant and builder were advised to pursue resolution with the utility district or seek ordinance revision from the Board of Commissioners.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the minutes of Jan. 6 by voice vote (motion passed; transcript recorded the result as three in favor, one abstention). The variance request for 202 Stonebrook Court was not approved (motion failed).