BZA says zoning administrator erred in interpretation of 1960 7 Hills Club special exception

The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0 on Feb. 5 that the zoning administrator erred in his interpretation of a 1960 special-exception order for the 7 Hills Club, reversing the narrower enforcement position taken by the codes office.

Joey Hargis, Metro zoning administrator, opened the appeal and read his written determination that, while most of the 1960 conditions remain enforceable, condition number 6 — a prohibition on the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages — is not a land-use regulation he can enforce and falls under the beer board and the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Appellant counsel Jason Holloman and supporting witnesses disputed that interpretation, arguing the 1960 order and associated site plan carried an operative limit of 500 member families and tied that assumption to the approved 162 parking spaces.

Holloman presented archival documents and an approved site plan he said show six operative elements of the permit, including a 500-family cap and a requirement for 162 parking stalls. He told the board the southern parking lot depicted in the 1960 plan was never built and said the club's membership has grown to roughly 650 families without corresponding parking, producing on-street parking and pedestrian-safety concerns. "You have parking all over these residential streets," Holloman said during his presentation.

Hargis said he had reviewed records and concluded the alcohol prohibition was beyond his jurisdiction as zoning administrator because the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is regulated by separate authorities, but he acknowledged that the membership references appear throughout the file, even if not enumerated in the operative order. "I shall not enforce the provisions in my duties as zoning administrator as set forth in [the code]," he told the board while explaining his enforcement position.

Board members debated several procedural and legal questions: whether a 1961 amendment superseded the 1960 order, whether the preamble (recitals) citing 500 members constituted an operative condition or merely background, and whether parking shortfalls and neighborhood impacts should be addressed now or in a later show-cause or amendment process. Several members said the archival record demonstrates the board discussed 500 members repeatedly and that the site plan carried the membership assumption.

After deliberation, a board member moved that the zoning administrator's interpretation constituted an error on this item; the motion was seconded and the board voted 5-0 in favor of that motion. The board did not impose specific remedies in the motion; members directed that follow-up steps (enforcement show-cause hearings, a modification application by the club, or other remedies) would follow the board's procedural rules.

What happens next: the board's finding that an administrative error occurred does not itself change the permit language on the record; the parties may pursue additional proceedings (a show-cause enforcement hearing on compliance or a separate application by the club to modify historical conditions). Hargis said he would act according to the board's direction following further review.