Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Line Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boundary adjustment request denied after extended testimony about marketability and lender concerns
Summary
A proposed boundary adjustment that would have shifted roughly 19,632 sq ft between two A1 lots was denied 2–3 after applicants and real-estate professionals argued the change was needed to improve marketability and lenders’ willingness to mortgage the property; planning staff opposed approval under the current 80,000‑sq‑ft standard.
A proposal to move about 19,632 square feet from lot 6B to 6A in unincorporated Wilson County (case 4404) failed after the Board of Zoning Appeals concluded the applicant had not met the variance hardship standard under current zoning.
Bill (William) Zeke testified he and his wife contracted to buy the adjacent lot and said the existing property line sits approximately 46 feet from their garage wall and 37 feet from the sidewalk. Zeke and his wife said they had been told earlier in 2025 that a boundary adjustment might have been possible under the county’s previous A1 minimum lot-size standard of 40,000 square feet. Zeke asked the board to move the line roughly 54 feet to create a more functional front yard and to preserve the area’s rural character.
Real-estate agent Barbara Lindsay and mortgage professional Marlon Lindsay testified in support, saying the property sat on the market for roughly 270 days and that lenders could be reluctant to approve mortgages for a parcel with irregular recorded lines or platting issues, thereby reducing marketability. Neighbor Jennifer Smith, the owner of lot 6B, testified she consented to the transfer and said the acreage under discussion is behind a tree line and not used.
Planning staff opposed approval, noting the existing lot was created in June 2023 and that the A1 zoning minimum increased to 80,000 square feet on Nov. 25 (staff cited this current ordinance language in recommending denial). Staff also flagged soils-area and septic setbacks that a surveyor would need to confirm before any plat could be recorded.
After board discussion focused on whether the circumstances constituted a legal hardship, a motion to approve the adjustment (with a replat condition) failed on a 2–3 vote and the request was denied. The board’s minutes show staff will continue to enforce the current lot-size standard; applicants may pursue other administrative remedies or a revised application if they can demonstrate the required hardship or alternative compliance measures.
Quote (applicant): Bill Zeke, applicant — "the property line is only approximately 46 ft from our garage wall or 37 ft from the outer edge of our sidewalk." (applicant testimony)
What’s next: The denial means the existing boundary stands. Applicants and consent-giving neighbor may choose to pursue an alternate zoning remedy, a different platting approach, or reapply if they develop additional evidence of hardship or changed circumstances.
