Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants front-setback relief at 125 Kingston but leaves parking unresolved
Summary
The Board approved a front-setback variance for a proposed two‑family at 125 Kingston (Case 2026‑88) citing contextual street conditions, but declined to approve on-site parking without NDOT (INDOT) permission and left parking conditional on that agency’s approval.
The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a reduced front setback for a proposed two-family development at 125 Kingston Street but declined to authorize the parking layout drawn on the applicant’s plan absent permission from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (INDOT).
Staff told the board the site requires a 20-foot street setback under the zoning table but that adjoining homes sit much closer; the applicants’ plan shows as little as 7 feet from the right-of-way due to a wide INDOT right-of-way and stormwater buffer constraints. Brandon McDonald, the applicant, and Justin Crandall, a builder, said stormwater zone restrictions and steep topography make rear or under-building parking infeasible and that they intend to seek INDOT’s permission to use pavement in the right-of-way as formal parking. "We want 2 car parking for each of the homes," McDonald said, adding the cost and schedule pressures make the project hard to rework without certainty on parking.
Neighbors and residents warned of narrow streets, emergency-access concerns and the risk of added on-street parking that could impede fire or ambulance access. Jeremy Duckett and other nearby residents raised safety, sunlight and flooding concerns tied to the proposed footprint.
Board members generally agreed the front setback is contextually compatible with adjacent development, but several members expressed reluctance to vest parking approval in this board when INDOT controls the right-of-way. The board adopted a motion to approve the front-setback variance while explicitly not approving the parking plan; members said the applicant may pursue INDOT encroachment approval and, if INDOT grants permission, codes staff would then treat the right‑of‑way parking as meeting zoning parking requirements. The motion passed by voice vote.
The board advised the applicants to seek INDOT authorization for the proposed parking layout; if INDOT denies encroachment permission, the applicants would need to rework plans or return to the board for revised relief. No roll-call tally was recorded on the transcript of the approval for the front setback.
