Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Permit Revocation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds revocation of owner‑occupied permit at 2111 Kahal Avenue amid residency questions

Metropolitan Short-Term Rental Appeals Board · June 24, 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

The appeals board upheld the zoning administrator’s revocation of an owner‑occupied STR permit for 2111 Kahal Avenue after staff presented records suggesting the permit holder did not list the property as a primary residence; neighbors raised concerns about investor intent and construction impacts.

The Metropolitan Short‑Term Rental Appeals Board on June 24 upheld a revocation of an owner‑occupied short‑term rental permit for 2111 Kahal Avenue, finding staff evidence supported the zoning administrator’s determination that the permit holder did not occupy the property as a primary residence.

Staff told the board that deed records, mailing addresses on tax bills and state registration records showed the owner’s mailing address in Mount Juliet; court filings and public records were cited in the department’s summary. Inspector site visits documented vehicles at a Mount Juliet address and other records (tax and corporate filings) that undercut the claim of Nashville primary residency.

Appellant Tommy Coupe (who also used the surname as in the public file) told the board he lives at the adjacent branch‑street unit and disputed some inferences in staff materials; neighbors and nearby residents testified they had not observed regular residency at the Kahal address and expressed concern that the property had been marketed to investors. Metro zoning administrator Joey Hargus explained the types of documentary evidence his office uses—driver’s license, voter registration and vehicle registration—as high‑weight evidence of domicile.

After deliberation the board found that the zoning administrator did not err and upheld the revocation. The board noted that revocation cases do not allow the same relief options as initial denials, and that documentary records carried significant weight in the administrative determination.