Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant asked to revise River Drive plans; Board defers contextual-setback case to April 16

Board of Zoning Appeals · March 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Concrete Investment sought a reduced contextual street setback for a pie-shaped lot on River Drive. Board members questioned whether the requested departure was a land-related hardship or a design choice and deferred the case to April 16 to allow the applicant to return with a site-specific redesign.

The Board of Zoning Appeals deferred a request by Concrete Investment to reduce the contextual street setback on a pie-shaped lot on River Drive after members questioned whether the requested departure reflected a hardship tied to the land or simply a design choice.

Metro Zoning Administrator Joey Hargis summarized the case and the applicant’s revised plan, which reduced the requested setback from a contextual average of roughly 48.9 feet to a proposed 24 feet — a 4-foot change from an earlier plan. The applicant said he shortened the house footprint and reduced the garage depth to achieve the change.

At the hearing the applicant asked board members whether a specific number (for example, 28 or 30 feet) would be acceptable, but several members repeatedly said it was the applicant’s responsibility to deliver a site-specific design that respects the contextual overlay rather than have the board pick a number. One member noted that dividing an original combined lot into two created the contextual issue and that an alternate design (an attached duplex) might meet setback requirements.

The applicant offered to return with revised plans; a board member moved to defer to April 16 to give the applicant time to work with an architect and neighbors, the motion was seconded, and the board approved the deferral.

The board advised the applicant that if the case were denied today the applicant would be unable to reapply for six months, so a deferral offered an opportunity to present a revised plan that might secure approval.