Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves street-setback variance for 1104 David after neighbors raise maintenance concerns
Summary
The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals granted a street-setback variance for Case 2026‑74 (1104 David), finding lot shape constituted a hardship despite neighbors’ complaints about property maintenance and potential height/privacy impacts.
The Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a street-setback variance for Case 2026‑74, the proposed rebuild at 1104 David, after staff and the applicant said the property’s irregular lot shape created a practical hardship.
Board staff told members the surveyor-calculated average street setback for nearby homes was 152.8 feet while the applicant proposed to rebuild at an existing 141-foot line, and that pushing the structure farther back would unduly reduce usable backyard area. Carter Phillips, representing the applicant and Triple M Development, said the irregular lot requires the adjustment and apologized for the current owners’ failure to finish boarded windows, saying, "We'll take care of that tomorrow" and that he would address the yard conditions.
Neighbors pushed back at the hearing. Drex Newman, who owns the lot next door, said he feared the replacement house would "tower" over his home and raised concerns about privacy, drainage and the lack of detailed construction measurements. John Lyle, across the street, disputed the applicant's description of the property as vandalized and said the homeowners' prior inattention to maintenance weighed against immediate approval.
Board members debated those neighborhood concerns but focused on the zoning standard for hardship. Several members said maintenance and neighbor relations are enforcement matters for codes, not a basis to deny a setback variance. One board member called the lot "odd shaped" and said that, given the site constraints, a front-setback variance was appropriate. The motion to approve passed by voice vote.
The board reminded applicants that four affirmative votes are required for approval and that parties have 60 days to appeal the board’s decision to Davidson County Chancery Court. No formal tally was taken on the public record beyond the voice vote. The applicant may proceed with permit steps consistent with the board’s ruling.
