Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Conservation Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers decision on 11‑lot Harpeth–Peytonsville subdivision after neighbor consent, drainage concerns
Summary
The Board continued the public hearing and deferred action on variances for an 11‑lot conservation subdivision at 4655 Harpeth–Peytonsville Road after commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about multiple variances, downstream drainage and the inclusion of a neighboring property without that owner’s consent.
The Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 25 deferred consideration of multiple variances requested to permit an 11‑lot major conservation subdivision at 4655 Harpeth–Peytonsville Road after county commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about steep slopes, drainage and property-owner consent.
Planning staff presented the site and said steep topography bisects the property, requiring variances to provide access and avoid excessive disturbance. Allison Corolla of T‑Square Engineering said many variances stem from existing site conditions and that the plan preserves stream buffers and steep slopes where possible. "The steep slopes analysis plan on the property shows that the steep topography bisects the property," she told the Board.
County Commissioner Judy Herbert urged the Board to deny the variances, saying the parcel is not suited for so many homes: "This piece of property is not suited for that many homes and I ask the Board to deny these variances," she said. County Commissioner Betsy Hester, who represents the same district, raised questions about drainage, slippage-soil protections and downstream effects, and said the development will need to connect to the Fairhaven sewer service.
Neighbor Richard Sack said he discovered his property had been included in the subdivision materials without his knowledge and called the inclusion "unethical." County Attorney Kristi Ransom told the Board that the Zoning Ordinance does not authorize the Board to decide variances that affect a property owner who has not authorized the application and suggested the applicant either remove those variances or request a deferral. The applicant requested a deferral; Vice Chairman Andrew Ring moved to defer and to continue the public hearing so neighbors could comment on any revised plans. The motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: The applicant will address whether variances affecting adjacent properties are properly before the Board and may revise plans; the public hearing will remain open so neighbors may comment on any changes.
