Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Height topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant withdraws variance request after neighbors object to large barn at Tate Lane

Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals · July 16, 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

Steve Griffith withdrew his variance requests for a large accessory building at 1700 Tate Lane after staff opposed and several neighbors raised concerns about the structure's size, height and visible, industrial appearance; the board accepted the withdrawal and no vote on the request was held.

Steve Griffith withdrew a request for major variances for a proposed accessory building at 1700 Tate Lane during the Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals’ July meeting after extensive public comment and questioning from board members.

Staff had told the board it could not recommend approval of either the size variance (which would have allowed a structure far larger than the 2,000-square-foot limit for accessory buildings without a principal dwelling) or the requested height variance. Griffith told the board he would withdraw the size variance and later decided to withdraw the remaining height request as well and redesign the project rather than press for relief.

Neighbors and nearby residents told the board they believed the proposed 13,000-square-foot footprint and a 35-foot-plus height would be out of scale for the area and could affect sight lines, stormwater management and neighborhood character. Joan Geltner (speaker 13) said a building of that size "will stick out like a sore thumb," and other neighbors raised concerns about runoff and compliance related to a nearby subdivision project.

A supporter (Chris Thompson, speaker 22) spoke for Griffith’s character and argued the design would not be industrial in appearance; but several board members said they had not heard a hardship sufficient to justify the large variance under the county ordinance. Griffith said he would return with a revised design that eliminates the need for the initial size variance and would seek any remaining approvals after that redesign.

Because the applicant withdrew the request on the record, the board took no further action on the merits and noted the case was closed without a vote.