The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals handled more than a dozen cases in its most recent meeting, approving some variances, denying others and attaching conditions to approvals. Below are the principal outcomes, listed by case number and the board’s action.

What the board decided (high level)
- Case 4348 (Mattern, 5885 Franklin Road): Approved an additional 10‑foot west side‑yard variance (amending an earlier 5‑foot allowance) to allow a proposed mobile home to be sited 5 feet from the property line. Board recorded 'ayes have it' after an amended motion and second.
- Case 4349 (Jones, 6060 Highway 109 N): Denied a waiver of the paving requirement for a storage/parking area; staff had recommended denial. The denial followed public comment raising environmental runoff concerns.
- Case 4350 (Maguire, 101 Apple Valley Road): Approved setback variances for an accessory structure and rear yard based on staff recommendation and the lot’s plat history.
- Case 4351 (Sibley / SNS Design Build): Approved requested side‑yard variances for the house and a detached garage to 'clean up' the lot configuration; staff had noted the accessory structure permit record was missing.
- Case 4352 (Bramlich): Denied a 7‑foot height variance for an accessory shop (staff recommended denial; accessory max is 22 feet by ordinance).
- Case 4353 (Elliott, 3890 East Division St): Denied a use variance to permit warehouse/storage use in an R‑1 zone and a size variance to allow a 10,000‑sf accessory structure; vote was 4 in favor of denial, 1 opposed.
- Case 4354 (Dead Land/Haunted Woods): Approved an extension such that the special‑use approval is now effective through November 2030 (board adjusted an earlier mischaracterized expiration and granted the extension with conditions attached).
- Case 4355 (Joshua Williams, 8184 Carthage Hwy): Approved an 11‑foot front‑setback variance but denied a 97‑sf variance for conversion of an existing structure into a detached ADU (board cited precedent and dimensional limits).
- Case 4356 (ClearStory Builders / James & Kaye Christmas): Approved multiple variances to rebuild a front porch on an older lot of record; variances related to an accessory shed were excluded and the board instructed the applicant to move or resolve the shed before permitting.
- Case 4357 (Farley / Rose): Denied a 20‑foot rear setback variance (staff could not recommend approval because the recorded plat requires the house to front Lake Forest Drive; neighbors raised septic and sight‑distance concerns).
- Case 4358 (Dawson): Height variance request for an accessory building failed (motion to grant failed on board vote).
- Case 4359 (Douglas): Applicant withdrew after discussion about what had been advertised; the board allowed withdrawal and agreed to waive a re‑application fee if filed within 90 days.
- Case 4360 (Comer): Approved the relocation/relief for an existing grandfathered billboard; board concluded relocation on the parcel to a different location was acceptable given commercial zoning adjustments.
- Case 4361 (England): Approved a 5‑foot east side‑yard variance to permit a detached accessory dwelling unit for the applicant’s parent; board required the applicant consult stormwater staff before permit issuance.
- Case 4362 (SouthernMarina’s Cedar Creek LLC): Renewed a short‑term rental approval for three years with original stipulations attached (no complaints reported to staff).

Why it matters: a number of the approvals involved older lots of record and the board repeatedly considered whether preexisting structures should be ‘cleaned up’ through variances, while denials often followed staff interpretations that current ordinance language could not support relief (notably for paving and certain height limits). ADU size and septic/stormwater capacity also emerged repeatedly as implementation considerations that will shape future permitting.

Next steps: Applicants whose requests were denied may reapply or pursue site‑plan review when applicable; several approvals include follow‑up steps (e.g., stormwater coordination or moving a shed before a permit can be issued). The planning office also notified the board of proposed zoning‑ordinance revisions under consideration by the commission.

Provenance: the outcomes above are drawn from staff recommendations, public testimony and board motions across the meeting record (topicintro SEG 141; topfinish SEG 4383).