02/16/17 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting

by:

American Today News

RINGERS ON YOUR SPHOANSZ, ELECTRONIC DEVICES — CELL PHONES, ELECTRONIC DEVICES. THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THAT MATTER. FOR TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARINGS, OUR BOARD MEMBERS REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE THAT’S BEEN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO EACH OF THE CASES THAT ARE UP FOR TODAY’S HEARINGS. THE BOARD ALSO REVIEWS THE DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE THAT’S BEEN SUBMITTED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR ELECTED OFFICIALS AS WELL. IN TODAY’S HEARINGS THE STAFF WILL PRESENT SITE PLANS, MAPS, FORECASTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT COMPRISE THE CASE RECORD. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE STAFF’S PRESENTATION, THE APPELLANT FOR EACH OF THE CASES WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE HIS OR HER CASE TO THE BOARD. AFTER THE APPELLANT’S PRESENTATION, THE BOARD WILL HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEALS. AFTER THOSE PERSONS SPEAK, THE BOARD WOULD HEAR FROM THOSE PARTIES WHO OPPOSE THE APPEAL THAT’S BEING PRESENTED IF THERE IS ANY OPPOSITION PRESENT. AFTER THE OPPOSITION PRESENTS ITS TESTIMONY, THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY IF THEY WISH. UNDER BZA RULES, THE APPELLANT HAS 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. IF THE EVENT NO OPPOSITION IS PRESENT.

FOR CONTESTED CASES, BZA RULES ALLOW FOR 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR DESIRED TESTIMONY. IF THE APPELLANT WISHES TO SAVE TIME BACK FOR REBUTTAL PURPOSES, IT’S IMPORTANT TO SAVE THAT OUT OF THE ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED 15 MINUTES. THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH HEARING, THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON THE CASE AT HAND. THE BOARD IS VESTED WITH THE FOUR TO ACT ON THESE CASES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE, 17.40.1A0. ALL OF THE SECTION NUMBERS THAT WE REFER TO TODAY COMES FROM THE METROPOLITAN ZONING CODE WHICH APYRES TO THE ENTIRE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT. IT WAS PUT IN PLACE AND TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1st OF 1998. AND I’LL INTRODUCE THE ENTIRE CODE AND MAKE IT PART OF TODAY’S RECORD.

THE METROPOLITAN CODE REQUIRES A REPORT OF OUR PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE BZA MEETINGS ARE RECORDED AND LATER BROADCAST TO PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION AND RECORDED AND PLACED UP ON YOUTUBE AS WELL, IT’S IMPERATIVE THAT ANYONE ADDRESSING THE BOARD PLEASE COME FORWARD, TAKE A SEAT, TURN ON THE MICROPHONE, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN MAKE WHATEVER YOUR DESIRED PRESENTATION IS. THE METRO CODE REQUIRES FOUR MEMBERS OF OUR SEVEN-MEMBER BODY TO ESTABLISH QUORUM. IT REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO GRANT AN APPEAL.

IN THE EVENT ONLY FOUR MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, THAT APPEAL WILL BE READVERTISED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE PUBLIC HEARING. IN THE EVENT THAT FIVE OR MORE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, AND THE APPEAL FAILS TO RECEIVE THOSE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, THEN THE CASE REMAINS ON THE BOARD’S AGENDA FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS. ANY APPLICATIONS THAT FAIL TO RECEIVE THE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES WITHIN 30 DAYS SHALL BE DEEMED DENIED BY OPERATION OF LAW. PURSUANT TO OUR BOARD RULES, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY APPEAL TO THE CHANCERY COURT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE HEARING DATE. OFFICIALLY, AGGRIEF PARTY MAY FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING BY THIS BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE ORIGINAL HEARING DATE PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF BZA RULES AND REGULATIONS. AFTER THAT TIME ELAPSES, NO FURTHER ACTION CAN BE TAKEN. AND THE BOARD’S DECISION BECOMES FINAL. FOR THE APPELLANT IF YOUR APPEAL IS GRANTED, THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT FOR WHICH YOU APPLIED. A PER MUST — PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED WITHIN TWO YEARS. BEYOND THAT TIME, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BACK TO THE BOARD AND SEEK AND OBTAIN ANOTHER APPEAL FOR THE PERMIT THAT YOU SEEK.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTE FEDERAL ANY FALSE OR ANY MISLEADING TESTIMONY IS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, ANY BOARD’S APPROVAL COULD BE REVOKED AT A LATER DATE BY MEANS AFTER SHOW CAUSE HEARING. I SUBMIT ALL THE CASES FOR TODAY’S — SUBMITTED IN THE PROPER ORDER, ALL APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY CERTIFIED MAIL, AND ALL LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. A COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE THREE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED OR RATHER FOUR. 001, THE FIRST CASE FOR TODAY’S DOCKET HAS BEEN DEFERRED. CASE 042 FOR THE PROPERTY ROAKE CLAITD AT 625 — LOCATED AT — HAS BEEN DEFERRED ONE MEETING. THE NEXT ITEM, CASE 043 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3410 GRANNY WHITE PIKE HAS BEEN DEFERRED ONE MEETING. AND JUST MOMENTS AGO, CASE NUMBER 36, THE LATE ADD, FOR PROPERTY AT 402 SOUTH 11th STREET IN EAST NASHVILLE HAS BEEN DEFERRED TWO MEETINGS. THOSE CASES WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. FOR ANY MEMBERS OF OUR AUDIENCE HERE FOR THOSE CASES, YOU’RE WOIRM TO LEAVE IF YOU WISH, WELCOME TO STAY. WE ALWAYS TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE ANY ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE PRESENT OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, STATE LEGISLATURE OR ANY OTHER BODY. BRETT WITHERS IS HERE FROM DISTRICT 6.

YOU’RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO BE RECOGNIZED AND I DON’T THINK I SAW ANY OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT, SO MR. WITHERS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. MY NAME IS BRETT WITHERS. MY HOME ADDRESS IS 1113 GRANADA AVENUE. AND I’M THE METRO COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT 6. I DID WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ON A CASE TODAY. HAPPENS TO BE LOCATED IN DISTRICT 7. IT IS WITHIN, HOWEVER, A CONTEXTURAL OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT STRADDLES DISTRICT 6 AND 7. AND JUST WANTED TO REITERATE FOR EVERYONE’S BENEFIT, I THINK WHAT I WOULD CALL A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE BUILDING WITHIN CONTEXTURAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS TO HELP NEIGHBORHOODS MAN TAIN THE — MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AS DEFINED BY LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT AS WELL AS ACCESS POINTS AND ACCESS POINTS REFER TO DRIVEWAYS. EVEN IN OUR SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS, THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS COULD CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITIES JUST AS MUCH AS OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS DO AND THE TOOL THAT SOME OF THE PARTICULAR MORE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS CHOOSE TO USE TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER IS THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY DISTRIBUTE AND THEY WORK WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THAT. FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS, THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ENACTED IS GENERALLY MATHEMATICAL IN CALCULATION AND OBJECTIVE I THINK. AND IT DOES LIMIT DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO ONE DRIVEWAY, EVEN FOR A DUPLEX LOT, TO ONE DRIVEWAY THAT ISN’T AT THE FRONT SETBACK THAT IS NO MORE THAN 12 FEET IN WIDTH AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ONLY DOES A FEW SUBJECTIVE THINGS BUT IS OBJECTIVE, I WANT THIS BODY TO BE VERY VERY CAREFUL IN GRANTING VARIANCES TO THOSE CRITERIA BECAUSE AT SOME POINT WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING THE DISTRICT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND SO FOR LOTS THAT DEMONSTRATE A TRUE HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF A LOT SHAPE, TERRAIN, OR SOME OF THOSE FACTORS, THERE MAY BE A GOOD REASON TO GRANT A VARIANCE. HOWEVER, THE ONE’S FAILURE TO PLAN APPROPRIATELY WHEN DESIGNING NEW STRUCTURES ON THE LOT, I WOULD SAY IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR A VARIANCE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I MYSELF WOULD ASK YOU TO DISAPPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCILMAN? COUNCILMAN WITHERS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THE BOARD UTILIZES A CONSENT AGENDA. ONE BOARD MEMBER REVIEWS THE RECORD PRIOR TO TODAY’S HEARINGS AND DERMSZ IF THERE ARE ANY CERTAIN CASES THAT MEET ALL THE CITE CRITERIA — RIGHT CRETEIA INVOLVED WITH THE REQUEST. IF THE RECRYING BOARD MEMBER — THAT CASE IS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL WITH THIS CONSENT AGENDA.

WE’LL ENTER INTO THE RECORD THOSE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED FROM TODAY’S MEETING. AND IF ANYONE IS HERE IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE CASES IDENTIFIED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL THAT PARTICULAR CASE SO THAT WE CAN REMOVE IT THERE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND HEAR THAT CASE IN ITS REGULAR ORDER. THE FIRST CASE RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA IS CASE 44. THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION FOR CONSENT AGENDA IS THAT THAT REDUCTION FROM FIVE TO FEET FOR THE REDUCED SETBACK TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE GARAGE AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 44? SEEING NO ONE, THE NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER 47. 2 NR 19 VALLEY BROOK ROAD. A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM — FOR A COVERED FRONT PORCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 47? THE NEXT CASE IDENTIFIED IS CASE 49, 700 ENVIOUS LANE. THE VARIANCE FOR A SIGN SPACING REDUCTION FROM 100 TO 60 FEET AND REQUIRED FROM 15 TO FIVE FEET FOR THE SETBACK. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 49? SEEING NO ONE, 52, 54 ON 3 CENTENNIAL BOULEVARD. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE FORE30 FEET AT THE SETBACK LINE TO 36 AT THE AT-BAT LINE FOR A MIXED — SETBACK LINE FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. ANYONE HERE IN OPMONTHS? THE — OPPOSITION? THE LAST CASE IS CASE 53, 2165 NOLENSVILLE ROAD. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE REQUESTING SETBACK REQUIREMENT REDUCTION FROM 15 TO FOUR FEET IN THE URBAN ZONING OVERLAY.

AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM HEIGHT CONTROL PLAIN REQUIREMENTS IN THE UZO FROM 35 UP TO 75 FEET FOR THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 53? SEEING NO ONE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT GIVES FIVE CASES FOR CONSENT. CASES 44, WITH THE NOTED CONDITION, CASE 47, CASE 49, CASE 52, AND CASE 53. WE WOULD SOLICIT A MOTION FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. >> THOSE ARE FOLLOWING CASES FOR THE CONSENT — AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND FOR IF CONSENT AGENDA — FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> SECOND. >> DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSEND AGENDA, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> VERY WELL. >> NOW THAT THE MICROPHONE IS ON, I WILL NOTE FOR THOSE CASES APPROVED, THE APPELLANTS ARE WELCOME TO STAY BUT NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO. YOU’RE WELCOME TO SEE OUR STAFF AS EARLY AS TOMORROW TO HELP GET THE PER THINK THAT YOU NEED — T THAT YOU NEED.

WE’LL MOVE INTO OUR FIRST CASE FOR PUBLIC HEARING. MANUFACTURE CHAIRMAN, THE FIRST CASE IS 2017-030. IT’S FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 79 — 7897 OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF DAVIDSON COUNTY. COUNCIL DISTRICT 35. TOM WHITE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, MOUNTAIN VIEW TRUST, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN A SPECIFIC PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT KENNEL.

THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE BOARD UNDER THE APPLICABLE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SECTION THERE. THE ZONING MAP GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE SP. IT DEMONSTRATES A RURAL PORTION OF THE COUNTY HERE. JUST BEYOND THEIVER ROAD SPLIT COME — THE RIVER ROAD SPLIT COMING OFF CHARLOTTE. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND YOU HAVE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS. THIS AT LEAST GIVES US GOOD SENSE OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE KENNEL ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THE LAYOUT COMING FROM OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE. WITH THAT, MR. WHITE, ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, I BELIEVE THERE’S OPPOSITION PRESENT. YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. YOU’LL WANT TO HOLD BACK ANY SUCH TIME THAT YOU MIGHT CHOOSE FOR REBUTTAL. AND AFTER THE APPELLANT GETS A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT DOES SO, THE BOARD WOULD HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS. MR. WHITE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS TOM WHITE. 315 DEAD DRINK STREET. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE. PRESENT WITH ME TODAY ARE ROY DALE TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT WHO’S THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT AND BLAKE FOAL, WHO WOULD BE THE OPERATOR OF THE PROPOSED KENNEL.

THE BREAKDOWN OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY WILL BE I’LL ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE LAW. ROY DALE WILL ADDRESS HOW THIS SITE IS LAID OUT AND MR. FOAL WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION. I’M REQUESTING MR. CHAIRMAN, TWO MINUTES REBUTTAL IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. >> THAT’S FINE. YES. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND USE ISSUES THAT WE’RE HERE TODAY ON, THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH ONE OF THE THREE FUNCTIONS GRANTED BY THE TENNESSEE CODE OF BOARDS OF ZONING APPEALS AND IF A MATTER COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR AS OFTEN BEEN CALLED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I THINK THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR.

IF YOU MEET THE CONDITIONS, THE MATTER IS TO BE APPROVED. I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY DISPUTE BUT THAT WE MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR THIS TYPE OF OPERATION AND WE EXCEED THE OPERATION COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN WE FIRST FILED IN THIS CASE, WHICH ROY DALE WILL COVER. BUT FIRST WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW, ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AGAIN, THIS BOARD HEARS THESE MATTERS WITH SOME FREQUENCY. BUT AS OPPOSED TO VARIANCES AND OTHER MATTERS THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDERS, A CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. BASICALLY, THE CASE IS ALWAYS CITED IN TENNESSEE AND THIS LAND USE AREA IS A CASE CALLED WRITE VERSUS CITY OF SHELBYVILLE. IT’S A CASE THAT’S 2012. IT’S GENERALLY CITED AS THE LEADING AUTHORITY HERE. AND WHAT THAT CASE SAYS IS, QUOTE, TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IT REQUIRES ONLY A FINDING THAT THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN MET. THE INCLUSION OF THE PARTICULAR USE IN THE ORDINANCE HAS ONE THAT IS PERMITTED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE EQUIVALENT TO A LEBLGHTIVE FINDING — LEGISLATIVE FINDING THAT THE PRESCRIBED USE IS ONE WHICH IS IN HARMONY WITH OTHER USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT.

SO THE COMMENT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE LAW THAT THESE TYPES OF USES THAT ARE SPELLED OUT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHEN THEY’RE ALLOWED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A CONDITIONAL USE PER IN — PERMIT IN THAT DISTRICT. THE COURT CONTINUES TO SAY WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS AUTHORIZED A USE BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR CONDITIONAL USE, BOARDS WILL PRESUME THAT SUCH USE SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE IT’S AUTHORIZED. CLASSIFICATION OF A USE IS ONE THAT IS PERMITTED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONSTITUTES A LEGISLATIVE FINDING THAT THE USE ACCORDS WITH THE GENERAL ZONING PLAN AND IS IN HARM KNEE WITH OR WHETHER NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND MEETS THE PUBLIC NEED. THE TENNESSEE LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW IN A MAJORITY OF THE STATES IN THIS COUNTRY ON A CONDITIONAL USE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO WE’D RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDER THATY SPECTFULLY MEET ALL — THAT WEE SPECTFULLY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, WE EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS. WE ASK FOR AND I’M GOING TO ASK MR.

DALE TO COVER THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSAL. >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN — >> PLEASE PRESS YOUR MICROPHONE. >> SORRY. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 516 HEATHER PLACE. AND THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY ACRES. LOCATED OFF — ACTUALLY 7897 OLD CHARLOTTE. AND THE PROPOSED 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT KENNEL IS ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM OLD CHARLOTTE AND PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT’S VERY WELL VEGETATED AND NOT VISIBLE. THIS PROPOSED BUILDING IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF ANY HOUSE OR THERE’S NO KENNEL RUNS WITHIN 100 FEET. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE ARE NO KENNEL RUNS AT ALL. THIS PROPOSED FACILITY IS ALL ENCLOSED. IT’S A 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDINGS. WITHIN THAT BUILDING IS A SEPARATE BUILDING IN WHICH DOGS ARE ACTUALLY HOUSED. THIS IS MORE OF A TRAINING FACILITY. IT DOES BOARDING AND TRAINING. SO THE DOGS THAT ARE KEPT THERE ARE GOING THROUGH A TRAINING PROCESS.

AND THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAINING ACTUALL TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE BUILDING ITSELF. THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE DOGS WILL GO OUTSIDE. WE DID HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING WE ADVERTISED THAT MEETING. WE PUT SIGNAGE OUT THERE. AND WE HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETING IN AN EFFORT TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ADDITIONALLY THE COMMUNITY MIGHT WANT THAT MIGHT BE BEYOND WHAT’S REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. THERE WERE TWO SITUATIONS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. SOME PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT MAYBE AN ANIMAL WOULD GET LOOSE. YOU KNOW, THE FEW ANIMALS THAT ACTUALLY GO OUTSIDE. AND SO WE DECIDED WE WOULD SHOW PERIMETER FENCING AROUND THE BUILDING ITSELF WHICH WOULD BE 60 INCHES HIGH WHICH WOULD PREVENT ANY ANIMALS ESCAPING. IF SOMEONE TOOK AN ANIMAL ON A LEASH AND THEY COULD GET AWAY. THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCESS ON TO OLD CHARLOTTE. THIS IS AN EXISTING 8-ACRE PARCEL. THERE’S A HOUSE THERE. IT’S PROBABLY VACANT. BUT THE ACCESS POINT IS GOING TO REMAIN WHERE THE ACCESS POINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. THIS DOES COME IN AT AN ANGLE. AND WHAT WE TOLD THE COMMUNITY WE WOULD DO IS THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY ELEVATE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THERE AND SINCE IT COMES IN AT AN ANGLE, WE WILL ALSO REMOVE A LOT OF VEGETATION.

SO THAT ANYBODY THAT LEAVES THIS SITE WILL BE EASILY VISIBLE FROM PEOPLE COMING UP CHARLOTTE OR DOWN CHARLOTTE IN EITHER DIRECTION. SO THE ACCESS WILL ACTUALLY BE IMPROVED FROM WHERE IT IS TODAY AS AN EXISTING ACCESS. ALL THE ITEMS, ALL THE PERFUNCTORY ITEMS THAT YOU LIST AS THINGS REQUIRED FOR A KENNEL HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN. AND HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I DON’T THINK THERE ARE ANY OTHER CONCERNS THAT I COULD MENTION THAT — WE’VE TRIED TO SOLVE I THINK — WHEN YOU HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY, PROBABLY THE MOST CONCERNS WILL BE COMING FROM ACCESS. WE’RE DEDICATED TO WIDEN THE ACCESS, PROVIDE A BETTER ACCESS THAN EXISTS TODAY. IT’S A VERY LOW-VOLUME TRAFFIC FACILITY. MOST OF THE DOGS THAT ARE BOARDED THERE ARE ACTUALLY DOGS THAT ARE COMING FROM OTHER PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT — THE OWNERS OF THE PETS ARE NOT COMING THERE. GENERALLY, WHEN AN ANIMAL COMES TO THIS FACILITY, IT’S TRAINED FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS. AND THE OWNERS OF THE PETS ARE ALLOWED TO COME ONCE A WEEK.

AND A LOT OF THE OWNERS ARE NOT EVEN IN NASHVILLE, SO THEY DON’T COME AT ALL. SO IT’S A VERY ISOLATED AND — YOU DON’T HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC HERE AT ALL. I DON’T SEE MUCH TRAFFIC. PROBABLY MAYBE 10 VEHICLES A DAY, WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT MORE YOU WOULD HAVE AT A NORMAL RESIDENCE. SO HAVING ADDRESSED ALL THOSE CONCERNS, I THINK THE ACTUAL OWNER IS HERE THAT WILL BE OPERATING THIS FACILITY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM HIM AS FAR AS THE OPERATION IS CONCERNED, HE’S HERE TO ANSWER THOSE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN A OTHER THINGS BEFORE MR. FOAL IS ASKED QUESTIONS HERE TODAY, AND THAT IS, WANT TO MAKE — THIS IS NOT A BREEDING FACILITY. THERE WILL BE NO BREEDING DONE AT THE FACILITY. AGAIN, MR. FOAL CAN ANSWER THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS. HE HAS SOME REAL EXPERTISE IN OPERATING KENNELS LIKE THIS AND WITH DOGS. BUT AGAIN, NO BREEDING OF THE 80% OF THE DOGS WILL BE DOGS THAT ARE BEING TRAINED AS HOUSEHOLD PETS. THERE WILL PROBABLY BE 20% OF THESE THAT ARE TRAINED AS PROTECTIVE DOGS THAT GET TRAINED FOR DIFFERENT AGENCIES.

ALL OF WHICH WILL BE CONTAINED IN THAT KENNEL BUILDING WHICH MR. DALE REFERENCED. I ALSO WANT TO TALK WITH RESPECT TO THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. THE TRAFFIC AT MAXIMUM, WHICH WE SEE, WILL BE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD IS 20 CARS A DAY. AND WE’VE ANNOUNCED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HEARING, EXCUSE ME. WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIAL TRAFFIC, WE ANTICIPATE IN YEARS ZERO BEGINNING TO YEAR 2, 10 VEHICLES A DAY. THAT WOULD BE 10 VACCINE IN, 10 VEHICLES — VEHICLES IN, 10 VEHICLES OUT. OF THOSE AT LEAST INITIALLY, THREE OR FOUR OF THEM WILL BE STAFF. OTHERS WILL BE PEOPLE BRINGING DOGS, DROPPING THEM OFF FOR THE TRAINING PERIODS. SO WE’RE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT OLD CHARLOTTE IS AN AREA WHICH IS SENSITIVE FOR TRAFFIC.

I THINK AS ROY DALE COMMENTED, THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WOULD HAVE. BUT WE INTEND TO IMPROVE IT. AS A ULTIARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHICH AS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE AGREED TO GO BACK AND DO THE FENCING THAT MR. DALE COMMENTED ABOUT, RAISE IT TO A LEVEL THAT WAS SUGGESTED AT THE MEANING, AND INDICATED THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO PUBLIC WORKS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE SUBMITTED A REVISED PLAN THAT SHOWED GREATER ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENT. I THINK WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT’S OUR PRESENTATION.

THE PERSON THAT OPERATES THE FACILITY IS MR. COAT TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. IN SOME OF THE OPPOSITION LETTERS IT STATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND DON’T LET ANYTHING BUT A HOUSE BE THERE. BUT IT’S ZONED SP. AND CAN YOU — SOMETIMES AN SP PROJECT GETS PASSED WITH A PLAN ALREADY THERE. SO DO YOU KNOW — CAN YOU HELP US WITH ANY OF THE HISTORY OF THAT TO SAY, HOW DID IT BECOME AN S P? WHAT WAS THE INTENT AND IS THIS A VARIATION FROM THE INTENT? IF YOU HAVE ANY — IF YOU DON’T, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> I DO. AND WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT. I’M LOOKING AT THE ZONING BILL ITSELF WHICH WAS 2016SP-026-001. AND THE PROPOSAL ON THE FACE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ITSELF SAID SP. REQUEST TO REZONING FROM R80 TO SP-MU, ZONING ON A PROPERTY AT 7897 OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE. APPROXIMATELY 1,050 FEET EAST OF OLD TOWER ROAD. — RESIDENTIAL, AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED, AND A KENNEL. ONLY PERMITTED WITH ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STARNSDZ OF SECTION 7 — THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE THE ITEMS THAT MR. DALE JUST REFERENCED TO THE GROUP. SO THERE’S NO QUESTION FROM THE VERY OUTSET WHEN WE WENT FOR THE REZONING, WE MADE SURE THE COUNCILMAN, THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE MADE SURE EVERYBODY AT THE METRO COUNCIL HEARD EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE SAYING TO YOU TODAY.

AND THEN I’VE JUST READ FROM THAT ORDINANCE. WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE CAME UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS CERTAINLY APPROVED. I THINK IT WAS ON CONSENT. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. WHEN WE CAME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE COUNCIL, NO ONE CAME TO THE PUBLIC HEARIN AT THE METRO COUNCIL. BUT THE INFORMATION THAT I’M READING TO YOU WAS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY AGENCY WE’VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT HERE AND I THINK IT’S BEEN A PROCESS OF SIX MONTHS THAT WE CAME THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEN THE ORDINANCE AS ENACTED IS EXACTLY WHAT I READ TO YOU. >> AND THEN I GUESS JUST TO — ADDRESS A FEW OF THE ISSUES, AND THE OPPOSITION CAN ADDRESS SOME, BUT I’LL ASK UP FRONT. AND THEN WE’LL HEAR FROM THEM AND YOU CAN REBUT THAT, TOO. BUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS ARE — I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED 80% OF THE DOGS WERE GOING TO BE HOUSEHOLD PETS AND 20 FOR OTHER — YOU MENTIONED OTHER AGENCIES OR WHAT NOT.

BUT IT’S BEING — I GUESS THE NEIGHBORS ARE LOOKING AT IT AS A GERMAN SHEPHERD KENNEL AND SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HAVE YOU ADDRESS THAT. AND THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT IS THE BUILDING, HOW BIG IT IS. YOU KNOW, BUFFERING. I MEAN, ARE YOU GOING TO SEE IT FROM THE ROAD? I MEAN, SO IF YOU COULD HIT SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ON THE FRONT END, THEN — >> IF WE MIGHT DO SOME DIVISION AND RESPONSING TO YOUR QUESTION, THE FIRST ONE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, THAT’S SOMETHING I THINK ROY DALE CAN ADDRESS. AND I’LL LET HIM DO THAT. AND THEN I’LL ANSWER PART OF YOUR QUESTION AS WELL. >> SO THIS BUILDING IS 25 SHOWSHOWERS SQUARE FEET AND IT IS SITUATE — DON’T 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT’S GREAT BACK INTO THE PROPERTY.

THERE’S A LOW AREA THAT’S WELL SCREENED. IT EXCEEDS THE DISTANCES FROM ANY RESIDENCE. — RESIDENTS. THERE ARE TWO PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME APPLICANT. I THINK THERE’S ONE OR TWO PARCELS THIS THAT ARE OWNED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS. THIS BUILDING IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO CONTAIN NOISE. THE DOGS ARE IN THE BUILDING ITSELF. ACTUALLY, ARE HOUSED IN A SEPARATE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAS LIKE EIGHT INCHES OF FIRE FOAM AND METAL — STYROFOAM AND MIAMI HEAT. SO THERE’S NO NOISE THAT LEAVES THE BUILDING ITSELF. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THERE ARE NO OUTDOOR RUNS.

A LOT OF KENNELS, A LOT OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXCEPTION TALK ABOUT OUTDOOR RUNS AND HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM PROPERTIES. THERE ARE NO OUTDOOR RUNS. DOGS WILL BE OCCASIONALLY TAKEN OUTDOORS FOR TRAINING, BUT THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL CAGES WHERE DOGS HAVE ACCESS TO THE OUTSIDE. SO IT’S A COMPLETELY NOISELESS TYPE FACILITY. >> HOW TALL IS IT? >> I THINK 16 FEET. >> SO A ONE-STORY. >> NO, IT’S A ONE-STORY. >> 16 BECAUSE OF THE SPAN. >> AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVEN COLORS, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN’T SEE IT, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SEE IT, YOU COULD PROBABLY USE COLORS THAT WOULD BE COMMON IN A RURAL SETTING LIKE RED, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A BARN. BUT IT THINK ITVEL SITUATED AND FIT IN — IT WILL BEVEL SITUATED AND FIT IN. >> THE OTHER PART HAD TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES. AND MR. FOLEY IS HERE, THE ONE THAT OPERATES.

HE CAN GIVE YOU SPECIFICS ON THAT. I DO WANT TO REMEMBER THE BOARD, REMIND THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES SUCH AS THIS. ONE IS THE CLIENT I REPRESENTED OUT ON HIGHWAY 96. AND THAT OPERATION HAS GOT A HUGE NUMBER OF DOGS, FAR GREATER THAN THAT. THEY’VE GOT OUTDOOR RUNS. IT’S SITUATED BEHIND A NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAD SOME INITIAL OPPOSITION WHEN THAT WAS DONE. I’VE CHECKED WITH METRO RECENTLY. THEY HAVEN’T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS IN YEARS. AND I THINK THIS PARTICULAR USE WILL BLEND INTO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. AND WE HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO DO ALL THIS COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHICH UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THEM FIRST HEARD ABOUT ON FEBRUARY 8th.

BUT I’D LIKE TO ASK MR. FOLEY TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND HOW IT’S OPERATED. >> THANK YOU, MY NAME IS BLAKE FOAL. 6727 DUQUESNE COURT, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. THIS BOARDING AND TRAINING FACILITY IS COMING OUT OF A BUSINESS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE HAD FOR 15 YEARS, WHICH IS BREEDING WORKING GERMAN SHEPHERDS. WE HAVE DOGS THAT HAVE SERVED IN EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND HAVE COMPETED IN A SPORT CALLED CHUTESSEN. TO THE WORLD-CLASS LEVEL. TODAY WE HAVE ALL OF — >> WHAT IS THAT SPORT? >> CHUTESSEN. >> TELL ME. >> IT’S A BREED TEST FOR THE GERMAN SHEPHERD. IT’S AN INTERNATIONALLY RESPECTED SPORT. IT’S A COMBINATION OF TRACKING, OBEDIENCE, AND PROTECTION. OKAY. SO TODAY WE SEND ALL OF OUR DOGS TO GERMANY. AND OUT OF THE TRAINERS THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN GERMANY IN WANTING TOO WORK WITH THE USO AND HIRE — TO WORK WITH THE USO AND HIRE MILITARY K-9 OFFICERS, BECAUSE THE JENNECISION OF THIS TRAINING, AND IT IS — GENESIS OF THIS TRAINING, IT’S THE MOST INTENSE A DOG CAN GO THROUGH, GIVES YOU THE YOU A BUILT TO TRAIN ANY DOG IN ANY SITUATION.

SO THIS WILL BE A 60-DOG KENNEL OF WHICH PEOPLE WILL SEND DOGS. IT IS NOT A BOARDING KENNEL WHERE YOU DROP A DOG OFF AND PICK IT UP. YOU WILL SEND THE COAST DOG FORO WEEKS A MONTH OR MORE. WE TRAIN THE DOGS. 80% OF THE BREEDS WILL NOT BE GERMAN SHEPHERDS, NOT TO BE BOMB DOGS, DRUG DOGS, SEARCH AND RESCUE, SEIZURE DOGS, CADAVER DOGS. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE HOME PET. THE OTHER 20% WILL BE DOGS THAT WE WILL BE TRAINING SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. BE IT A DRUG DOG OR BOMB DOG, BE IT A PERSONAL PROTECTION DOG, OR A POLICE STREET DOG OR A WAR DOG. AND SO THAT’S WHERE PEOPLE GET VERY EXCITED AND NERVOUS ABOUT BITING DOGS AND THEY TALK ABOUT ATTACK DOGS. THERE’S ONLY ONE THING IN COMMON WITH ATTACK DOGS, IS THAT THEY’RE POORLY BRED. THEY’RE NEVER TRAINED AND THEY’RE RUNNING LOOSE.

OUR DOGS HAVE PIDI AGREE THAT IS GO BACK 120 YEARS. OUR DOGS ARE CONTAINED. THEY’RE NOT OUT IN RUNS AND OUR DOGS ARE ARE IMPECCABLY TRAINED FOR SERVICE AROUND THE WORLD. >> LAST THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THERE BE WILL BE NO BREEDING. THERE HAS BEEN AT SOME OF THE OTHER OPERATIONS. THERE WILL BE NO BREEDING AT THIS FACILITY. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU’D MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY ARE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT? >> I THINK THERE ARE FOUR ADJACENT PARCELS. >> I’M JUST — LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THERE’S A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP THAT HAS A HOME WITH A POOL THAT’S MORE THAN 200 FEET AWAY FROM THE KENNEL, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES, BUT IS THAT PART — IS THAT PARCEL OWNED BY THE APPLICANT? >> NO, IT IS NOT. >> SO ACROSS THE STREET, THAT WERE — >> THERE’S TWO TWO — IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR DRAWING AND TO THE LEFT SIDE, THERE’S TWO OTHER PARCELS THAT’S — AND THAT’S OWNED BY THE SAME APPLICANT.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR DRAWING, THERE’S ANOTHER PARCEL THAT’S NOT OWNED. >> OKAY. >> SO — I JUST THOUGHT I’D THROW THAT OUT. >> I APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHO OWNS — >> IT’S VERY ISOLATED PARCEL. A PIECE OF PROPERTY. THERE’S A LOT OF PROPERTY IN THAT AREA AND THIS SHOULD FIT IN WELL. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OF THE APPLICANT? SO YOU’LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES AND FOUR SECONDS LEFT FOR REBUTTAL. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, THESE DOGS ARE JUST GOING TO BE TAUGHT LIKE, YOU KNOW, HOW TO SIT OR CATCH A BALL AND BRING IT BACK OR NOT CHEW UP SOMEONE’S SHOES OR COUCH, IS THAT — BASICALLY WHAT — >> WELL, THE TRAINING WILL TRANSPIRE EVERYTHING FROM BAISM SIT, STATE, COME TRAINING TO ADVANCED OBEDIENCE. THERE COULD BE ANYTHING FROM FLY BALL ROUTINES THAT THEY WANT TO DO TO HIGHER LEVELS OF TRAINING FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE, TO SCENT IDENTIFICATION FOR DRUG AND BOMB USE. THE EXTREME END OF THE TRAINING IS ESTIMATED TO BE LESS THAN 20%. 80% IS GOING TO BE BASIC TRAINING.

PROBLEM SOLVING. MY DOG’S TEARING UP MY COUCH. SIT, STAY, COME. OBEDIENCE TRAINING. >> YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY — YOU’VE DONE THIS FOR A WHILE, BUT HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR A PROFESSIONAL TO TRAIN SOMEBODY’S WAYWARD DOG THAT ISN’T VERY OBEDIENT? >> DEPEND HOW WAYWARD AND WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE. TYPICALLY WITHIN A MONTH OF VERY INTENSIVE TRAINING. FIVE SESSIONS A DAY WITH A HANDLER, WITH A LOT OF EXERCISE INCLUDED IN THAT. AND THEN IF YOU BRING THE OWNER IN, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT’S HARDER TO TRAIN THE OWNER THAN IT IS THE DOG. IF YOU BRING THE OWNER IN ONCE A WEEK, SO THEY CAN LEARN AS THE DOG IS LEARNING AND PROGRESSING, WITHIN 30 DAYS YOU CAN HAVE A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT ANIMAL, A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ANIMAL. AND A MUCH HAPPIER HOUSE FOR THE ANIMAL. >> SOME HOUSEHOLD PET YOUS YOU KEEP FOR 30 DAYS? >> YES. >> I GUESS THAT SAVES ON SHOES AND COUCH COSTS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TO SAY THE DISCIPLINE AND PROFESSIONALISM HERE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT WE EXPECT A NUMBER OF PARENTS TO QUIABOUT THEIR CHILDREN.

— INQUIRE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN. >> YOU’LL HAVE FOR REBUTTAL. WE’LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. >> WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM THE DISTRICT COUNCILMAN WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE AND ASK THAT WE SHARE COMMENTS. REGARDING BZA CASE — SHOULD THE BOARD SEE FIT TO APPROVE THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WHICH COULD BE USED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ONE, INGRESS EGRESS DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE SAFE FOR BOTH THOSE ENTERING EXITING THE PROPERTY AND THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PASSING BY IT. FENCING THAT DOGS OF ANY SIZE CANNOT JUMP OVER, PASS THROUGH, OR SNEAK ENDER.

KEEPING SOUND CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY AS COMMITTED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BY THE APPLICANTS USING ADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES IN ADDITIONAL TO VEGETATIVE SCREENING. DAVE ROSENBERG, METRO COUNCIL 35. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION — >> WE WOULD AGREE TO ALL THOSE CONDITIONS AS CONSISTENT WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS OF THE COUNCILMAN AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE MAKES. >> OKAY. LET’S — NEIGHBORS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. LET’S HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. AND PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME AND DEBBIE THURMOND AND 6127 FIRE TOWER ROAD, NASHVILLE. I’VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN FOR THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF.

— DURING THE TIME THAT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WERE HEARD, SO I’M KIND OF BEHIND ON EXACTLY WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE REQUESTED. I’VE BEEN BROUGHT UP TO SPEED SOMEWHAT. I JUSTANTED TO STATE TODAY — I JUST WANTED TO STATE TODAY, I LIVE IN THE AREA. MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED PROPERTY AND BUILT A HOUSE 22 YEARS AGO. SO WE’RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE. WE TRAVEL IT EVERY DAY BECAUSE IT’S REALLY THE ONLY WAY IN AND OUT OTHER THAN BUFFALO ROAD, WHICH IS EVEN MORE NARROW. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE, IT WAS THE STAGECOACH ROUTE BACK IN THE DAY. AND IT HASN’T CHANGED MUCH EXCEPT THAT IT’S PAVED.

IT WAS A STAGECOACH ROUTE THAT WENT FROM NASHVILLE TO CHARLOTTE WHEN CHARLOTTE WAS THE CAPITAL BEFORE IT WAS MOVED TO NASHVILLE. SO IT’S A VERY WINDING, MOUNTAINOUS ROAD. VERY NARROW. THERE ARE PICTURES OF THIS PARTICULAR — OF THE ROAD. AND THE GRADE IN SOME PLACES IS SUCH THAT THERE ARE NO SHOULDERS AND CARS DO GO OFF. WHERE THEIR DRIVEWAY, MY UNDERSTANDING, IS WHERE IT’S BEING PLANNED TO ACCESS OLD CHARLOTTE, THE INGRESS AND EGRESS IS VERY DANGEROUS. NOW, I UNDERSTAND TODAY TALKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS THAT THEY’RE GOING TO BUILD THIS UP TO A GRADE THAT WILL BE TWO LANES AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE IMPROVED. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONDITION AND I THINK ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS WOULD, THAT WE HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IMPROVED.

I MEAN, THERE’S GOING — IT’S GOING TO TAKE A TAKE A LOT OF TRAVEL, BECAUSE IT DROPS DOWN AND GOES DOWN VERY DEEP TO, BRING THIS UP — DEEP, TO BRING THIS UP TO THE ROAD LEVEL. AND IT’S GOT TO BE DONE IN A RIGHT WAY. IF IT’S NOT DONE RIGHT, IT’S GOING TO BE VERY HAZARDOUS. OLD CHARLOTTE IS ALREADY A VERY HAZARDOUS ROAD. IN MANY SITUATIONS, PEOPLE SPEED COMING FROM CHEATHAM COUNTY TO DAVIDSO COUNTY. IT’S A DIRECT ACCESS TO I-40. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 35 BUT NOBODY OBSERVES THE 35 SPEED LIMIT. THERE ARE NO CAUTION SIGNS WHEN THERE’S A — WHERE BUFFALO ROAD VEESHES OFF OF — VEERS OFF OF OLD CHARLOTTE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WARNING THAT THIS DRIVEWAY IS THERE. I MEAN, IT’S SUCH AN ANGLE THAT IT’S — AND THE WAY THE ROAD CURVES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, IT’S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE HURT THERE.

SO THAT DEFINITELY IS A CONDITION. AND I KNOW THE COUNCILPERSON ASKED FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING, TOO, AND I KNOW THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO THE SP ZONING, AND HONESTLY, WHEN THAT NOTICE WAS POSTED, IT WAS IN A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE ON OLD CHARLOTTE. THERE WAS NO PLACE TO PULL OVER AND SEE WHAT THE NOTICE SAID. IT WAS TACKED UP ON A TELEPHONE POLE. SO I KNOW THAT’S NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

THAT JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT WASN’T READILY AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE. SO THAT’S WHY THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. AND IT WAS UNDER CONSENT AND IT WAS PASSED WITH CONSENT. I DON’T FEEL LIKE THE DEVELOPERTS HAVE REALLY BEEN FORTHCOMING. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND ON PLANS — WE’VE YET TO SEE A PICTURE OF THE BUILDING. THERE HAVE BEEN NO — NO AS BITS OR ANY — AS AS AS BILL. S OR ANYTHING WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE. THEY SAY IT’S GOING TO BE NICE AND BLEND IN. BUT WE HAVE NO ASSURANCES OF THAT. WE WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. MY HUSBAND AND MY NEIGHBORS, WE BUILT OUT THERE AND INVESTED TO BUILD OUR HOMES AND RAISE OUR FAMILIES OUT THERE BECAUSE IT’S A RURAL AREA.

AND THIS FACILITY IS A COMMERCIAL FACILITY. 25,000 SQUARE FEET IS A HUGE BUILDING. AND I DON’T CARE IF IT IS DOWN IN A VALLEY. YOU’RE STILL GOING TO BE IMPACTED. AND IT ALSO OPENS THE DOOR FOR OTHER FACILITIES LIKE THIS TO BE PUT IN THE AREA. SO I’M GOING TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO MY NEIGHBOR. BUT I JUST WANTED TO GO ON RECORD SAYING MY CONCERNS. >> I’M REBECCA PORTER. 6110 FIRE TOWER ROAD. AND I ACTUALLY WAS AT THE MEETING LAST WEDNESDAY THAT WAS HELD AT THE LIBRARY. AND I DO NOT FEEL IT WAS A REASONABLE REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSAL. WE JUST HAD A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AND ANOTHER MAP THAT SHOWS A SQUARE ON IT AND ACCIDENT GET MANY MORE DETAILS THAN THAT TO TELL US MORE ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE AND JUST MORE DETAILS. LIKE THEY DIDN’T EVEN HAVE A FENCE ON THERE. THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE’RE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND NOTICE-WISE, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY NOTICE BECAUSE NOTICE WAS SENT OUT TO ONLY PEOPLE WITHIN LIKE 300 OR 600 FEET. AND TECHNOLOGICALLY, THAT’S ONLY LIKE THREE — TECHNICALLY, THAT’S ONLY THREE PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THIS PROPERTY IS DOWN IN A VALLEY SO IT AFFECTS EVERYONE AROUND THE VALLEY.

AND SO NOT EVERYBODY GOT NOTICE. AND WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE NEIGHBORS DID TAKE THE TIME TO TELL US, EVEN THOUGH WE’RE NOT WITHIN THAT DISTANCE. SO I DID WANT TO NOTICE THAT, THAT WE ARE CONCERNED BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE DUE TO NOT BEING WITHIN THE AREA TOLD. ONCE AGAIN, MY CONCERN ALSO IS CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING HERE. CURRENTLY — I COULDN’T EVEN — TO TAKE A PICTURE, I HAD TO STAND IN THE DITCH TO TRY TO GET A PICTURE OF THIS DRIVEWAY. AND THAT IS SO SHARP AND DROPS SO QUICKLY GOING DOWN INTO THE VALLEY. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO KEEP DROPPING. IT DROPS LIKE 20 FEET THERE. IT WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DROP OVER 100 FEET TO KEEP GOING DOWN INTO THE VALLEY TO HAVE ACCESS TO WHERE THEY’RE PLANNING TO PUT THIS SITE.

SO OUR CONCERN IS THAT CONSTRUCTION. YOU CAN’T HAVE THINGS SITTING ON OLD IS THAT RIGHT. AS PEOPLE — OLD IS THAT RIGHT. AS PEOPLE COMING UP, YOU COME AROUND TWO KIND OF HIDDEN BLIND CURVES. AND WOULDN’T KNOW TO STOP IN TIME FOR PEOPLE COMING OUT OR CONSTRUCTION TRYING TO TURN IN, ET CETERA. SO THAT’S CONCERNING. AS I WANT TO BE SAFE AND I’M SURE EVER ELSE DOES — EVERYBODY ELSE DOES COMING DOWN THE ROAD OR COMING UP. I ALSO HAVE BOUGHT IN THIS AREA. AND HAVE LOOKED IN NASHVILLE FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS TRYING TO FIND THAT LOCATION WHERE I CAN RAISE MY CHILDREN. I HAVE 10 CHILDREN. AND THEY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO WALK AND ROAM ON THE LAND. AND SO THAT’S THE OTHER CONCERN IS WHAT’S HAPPENING THERE. WHO WILL BE VISITING. THIS IS NOT A PLACE THAT’S GOING TO BE BUILT WHERE IT’S JUST THE LOCAL RESIDENTS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY.

NOW YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD BRINGING THEIR PETS AND OR PICKING UP THEIR PETS AND TRAINING WITH THEIR PETS. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE OF BELLEVUE COMING IN AND JUST PEOPLE WE JUST DON’T KNOW. I KNOW WHO LIVES AROUND ME. I KNOW — AND MY CHILDREN HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF THEIR SAFETY. AND WHAT TO EXPECT. AND SO HAVING DIFFERENT PEOPLE COMING THROUGH WILL CHANGE THE RURAL IMPACT ON US. WE HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT NOISE CONTROL. NOW, OUR QUIET VALLEY AND AREA WILL HAVE DOGS AND THINGS. WE WORRY ABOUT THE LIGHTS ON THE BUILDING. WE’RE ALSO — HAVE A BUS STOP THAT’S NEAR THIS. AS YOU GO UP OLD CHARLOTTE, MY KIDS — THAT’S WHERE THE BUS STOPS SIX TIMES A DAY. AND THAT’S ALREADY A HARD PLACE WHERE THE BUS DOES STOP FOR THESE CHILDREN AND SO NOW YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A BUS STOP AND MORE TRAFFIC ADDED AS ANOTHER CONCERN.

WITH THIS BUILDING THAT THEY’RE PUTTING IN, WE TALKED EARLIER, TOO, THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN TO HAVE A PERSON ON SITE 24/7, WHICH IS CONCERNING TO US. THEY’LL HAVE THESE ANIMALS INSIDE THIS BUILDING THAT’S 25,000 SQUARE FEET. IT WILL BE SEEN BY THE OTHER NEIGHBORS AS YOU COME UP THE VALLEY. YOU’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT. AS YOU’RE — THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE THERE AND AS I GO AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THE VALLEY, YOU CAN SO THAT’S SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF. WE VOTED — TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HAVING — IF A FIRE STARTED ON THE PREMISES, WHO WOULD BE NOTIFIED. WE DON’T KNOW WHO TO NOTIFY BECAUSE IT’S A TRUST. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO IF A DOG GETS OUT.

WHO DO THEY TELL BECAUSE THEY’RE HAVING A TRAINER AND THEN LEAVES. AND THEY TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY HAVING SOMEBODY LIVE ON ANOTHER PROPERTY PIECE, BUT THAT’S NOT IN-HOUSE, IN THAT BUILDING, KNOWING 24/7 WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE ANIMALS THAT THEY’RE TRAINING AND BOARDS. SO WE HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT — TRAINING AND BOARDING. SO WE HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THIS BEING ADDED WITHOUT SOMEBODY ON SITE BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO TAKE CARE IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THAT FACILITY. WE DON’T WANT TO BE HAVING TO CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE WANT TO KNOW WHO DO WE CONTACT.

WE THINK EVERYONE AROUND, WHO DO WE CONTACT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS. IF WE HAVE A CONCERN INSTEAD OF CONTACTING A TRUST. THE OTHER THING THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THESE DOGS THEMSELVES. WE WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE TAKEN OUTSIDE FOR TRACKING OUTSIDE TRAINING. SO EVEN THOUGH THEY’VE SAID THAT THEY’LL BE KEPT INSIDE, THEY TALK ABOUT TAKING THEM OUTSIDE AS PART OF THEIR TRAINING. AND THESE ARE FRESH NEW DOGS THAT MIGHT GET OUT. AND THAT ARE GOING TO BE TRAINING. SO THAT’S ALSO A CONCERN TO US. AND HONESTLY, IF YOU HAVE 60 DOGS INSIDE FOR ONE MONTH, IN A BUILDING THAT’S INSIDE WITH NO WINDOWS, THAT SEEMS LIKE A SAD WAY TO HAVE DOGS LIVE FOR A MONTH, THAT THEY NEVER GO OUTSIDE, PERSONALLY. I DON’T THINK THAT’S IN THE DOG’S BEST INTEREST TO BE KEPT AWAY FROM SUNLIGHT AND AWAY FROM EACH OTHER. AND SO WE HAVE A HARD TIME AS NEIGHBORS TO BELIEVE THOSE DOGS WILL NEVER GO OUTSIDE.

AND THAT THEY’RE JUST GOING TO BE KEPT INSIDE FOR A MONTH. AND WE’RE CONCERNED. WE’RE CONCERNED THAT THE DOGS WILL BE TREATED THAT WAY AND PLUS, THINGS ARE NOT DOGS FINISHING TRAINING. THESE ARE RANDOM DOGS BEING TAKEN THERE AND TRAINED IN A VARIETY OF TYPES OF DOGS IN A VARIETY OF LEVELS OF CAPABILITIES. AND THEY’LL BE TRAINED NOT ONLY OBEDIENCE BUT UP TO GUARD DOG TRAINING. AND THEN OUR NEXT THING IS NEIGHBORS WE’VE TALKED ABOUT, MY CONCERN IS THIS BUILDING COULD BE ANYWHERE. IT COULD BE IN CHEATHAM COUNTY. IT COULD BE ANYWHERE ELSE.

WHY CHOOSE TO HAVE IT IN OUR PEACEFUL VALLEY WHERE WE HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE AND ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A RURAL LIFESTYLE THAT’S QUIET REQUEST NO LIGHTS, WITH WITH NO LIGHTS, WITH NOT THE CITY INDUSTRY, BUSINESSES COMING TO US TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND I APPRECIATE THE LETTERS AND THE SENTIMENT AND THE THOUGHTS YOU SHARED.

AND I’LL JUST TELL YOU, WHEN ANYTHING THAT GOES THROUGH THE SP PROCESS ESPECIALLY WITH SAYING, HEY, WE’RE GOING TO BUILD A KENNEL, ANYTHING THAT’S VOTED ON BY THE METRO COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF OUR — KIND OF VOLUNTEER BOARD, THIS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, BUT WE’RE NOT ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THAT HOLDS A LOT OF WEIGHT. SO YOU KNOW, I REALLY — AM WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ALL FEEL LIKE SHOULD BE CONDITIONS.

AND THEY MAY OR MAY NOT ALL BE VIEWED APPROPRIATELY AS APPROPRIATE. BUT I KNOW YOU TALK ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY SAFETY AND ELEVATION T LANDSCAPE, HOW IT’S LANDSCAPED AND THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE BUILDING TO THE VALLEY, WHICH I KNOW THE APPLICANT — HAD MENTIONED, TOO, THE FENCING AROUND THE KENNEL. AND THEN WE HAVEN’T ASKED THEM ABOUT FIRE SUPPRESSION AND ON-SITE SAFETY, BUT WE CAN ASK THEM ABOUT THAT, TOO. BUT IS THAT KIND OF THE EXHAUSTIVE LIST? IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN, ARE THOSE THE THINGS THAT YOU’D LIKE TO SEE? >> WE WOULD LIKE A POINT OF CONTACT. WE NEED SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT THAT IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT, THAT IS CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN COME AND TAKE CARE OF ANY PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING.

>> AND IF — IT WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR THE COUNCILMEMBER. THE COUNCILMEMBER IS USUALLY A GOOD POINT OF CONTACT AND THEY SHOULD KNOW, BUT JUST PASS ALONG THAT INFORMATION. >> COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER WOULD BE HELPFUL, ALSO. AND WE HOPE THAT SOMEBODY IN METRO WILL LOOK AT THE IMPACT THAT THIS ADDED SEPTIC SYSTEM WITH THE DOGS WOULD HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE I’M ON A WELL. THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE STILL ON A WELL. HOW WILL THAT AFFECT OUR WATER. AND ALSO, THE RUNOFF COMES DOWN THE HILLS IN THE BACKSIDE AND DOWN INTO THIS VALLEY. THERE’S A POND THERE AND STREAMS FLOWING THROUGH THAT VALLEY AND OUT INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS IT FLOWS DOWN TOWARDS OLD HICKORY.

HOW WILL THAT RUNOFF CHANGE THE OTHER PROPERTIES AND AFFECT THEM, ESPECIALLY WITH LIKE CATTLE AND THAT KIND OF THING THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IT LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL STREAM GOING THROUGH THERE. WHAT IS THAT STREAM? DOES IT HAVE A NAME THAT YOU’RE AWARE OF? >> I DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, IT’S JUST IN THAT VALLEY. AND IT’S PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO I HAVEN’T BEEN DOWN TO THE STREAM. I KNOW THE RUNOFF COMES FROM — I’M FARTHER UP THE HILL AND THE RUNOFF COMES INTO THAT VALLEY AND THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL PONDS IN THAT AREA THAT THE RUNOFF COMES THROUGH AND CONTINUES ON AS IT GOES UNDER OLD CHARLOTTE TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES THERE.

>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. SO I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE ON SITE 24/7? IN CASE OF FIRE — >> I’D FEEL SAFER. >> YEAH. SOMEONE WHO’S GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE THE OWNER TRAVELS QUITE FREQUENTLY AND THERE’S NO WAY WE COULD REACH HIM. >> AND NOT ON A SEPARATE PROPERTY BUT ACTUALLY ON THE PREMISES WITH THOSE DOGS.

24/7 TO MAKE SURE — I MEAN, IT’S PARTLY TO PROTECT THEM AND THEIR BUSINESS, TOO. THEY DON’T WANT SOMETHING TO HAPPEN TO THE DOGS THAT THEY’VE TAKEN IN. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU, THE DRIVEWAY, IS THERE — WOULD YOU WANT BETTER SIGNAGE, BETTER LIGHTS? WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? >> SO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF THERE? >> RIGHT HERE. >> WHERE IT AS SAYSES — ACCESSES THE ROADS? OLD CHARLOTTE? ONE THING, IT NEEDS TO BE WIDER. PART OF IT’S THE POSSIBILITY,% IT’S MADE FOR ONE CAR AND AS YOU COME OFF AND YOU SWITCH BACK AND AROUND AND DOWN. YOU DROP QUICKLY. AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND GO, HOW WOULD A CONSTRUCTION TRUCK GET THERE, A FIRETRUCK GET IN THERE. AND IT’S JUST THAT. AS YOU’RE COMING UP A CAR WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLEERP ENOUGH TO SEE — CLEAR ENOUGH TO SEE UP CHARLOTTE, SO IF THEY’RE TURNING RIGHT, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME TO SEE WHAT CAR IS COMING BEHIND THEM AS THEY’RE PULLING OUT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY’RE PULLING LEFT AND CROSSING BOTH LANES.

SO YES, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LEVELED UP WHICH IS HARD BECAUSE THE STEEP SLOPE. SO YOU COULD SIT THERE FOR A MINUTE BEFORE YOU PULL INTO TRAFFIC AND SAY, CLEAR, LEFT, CLEAR RIGHT. OKAY, I CAN PULL OUT. >> AND ALSO BECAUSES IN AN AGRICULTURAL — BECAUSE THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL AREA. SO THERE’S SOME SLOWER VEHICLES WHO DO TRY TO MAKE IT UP THAT HILL THAT DON’T REALLY HAVE THE POWER TO GET UP THERE. ESPECIALLY FROM A DEAD STOP. SO THEY’RE GOING TO BE GOING UP THIS SLEEP HILL RIGHT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS — STEEP HILL RIGHT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS. IF A VEHICLE IS BEHIND THEM, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO START FROM A DEAD STOP — STOP TO MAKE IT THE REST OF THE WAY UP THE HILL. IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY HAZARDOUS SITUATION. COMING UP OLD CHARLOTTE.

IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. >> UNLESS THERE’S A BETTER ACCESS POINT COMING OFF THE PROPERTY, TOO. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION HERE? OKAY. THERE IS LEFT. IF THERE’S ANYONE ELSE, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DANIEL ORDERED. 7935 OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE. I THINK THE LADIES SPOKE VERY WELL FOR US FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE DRIVEWAY CERTAINLY IS A BIG ASPECT OF THIS. IT’S VERY CONCERNING TO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY. I LIVE AT A PROPERTY UP THE HILL FROM THERE. AND I’VE LIVED THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND I’VE HAD AN ACCIDENT ON MY PROPERTY ONCE A YEAR. >> YOU SAY YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT. DESCRIBE THE — >> A CAR ACCIDENT. >> MEANING? JUST PULLING OUT OR COMING IN? >> NOT MYSELF PERSONALLY BUT PEOPLE DRIVING ON THE ROAD. SOMEBODY HAS HIT THE TELEPHONE POLE. SOMEBODY’S HIT MY MAILBOX. SOMEBODY’S HIT MY FENCE. >> SO THAT’S BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE CURVE OR THE — >> NO, I’M UP ON A FLATTER HILL.

AND AT THE TOP. SO I’M ABOVE THIS GRADE. AND JUST THAT AREA ALONE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE TO HERE, THIS IS A MUCH MORE DANGEROUS AREA, THAT THIS ACCESS IS GOING TO BE AT. AND FROM MINE — THAN FROM MINE. >> SO THE PEOPLE WHO HIT YOUR MAILBOX AND THE PHONE POLE, WAS THAT BECAUSE OF SPEED? >> YEAH, PROBABLY SPEED HAS TO DO WITH IT. JUST PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

WE HAVE WILDLIFE OUT THERE. SO I DON’T KNOW IF A DEER JUMPED OUT IN FRONT OF ANYBODY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES. I’VE COME HOME TWICE TO NOTES ON MY FENCE SAYING, HEY, SORRY, WE RAN INTO YOUR PROPERTY KIND OF THING. SO I DO — I’M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. ALSO, I’M CONCERNED ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES. THE FACT THAT THERE’S NO SIGNAGE GOING TO BE PLACED ON THIS. I THINK THAT’S GREAT. I THINK THAT’S HELPFUL. BUT I’M ALSO CONCERNED FROM AN ELECTRONIC PERSPECTIVE, IF THE PROPERTY IS ADVERTISED ON WHERE GOOGLE CAN LOCATE IT, THEN OBVIOUSLY ZILLOW AND THOSE TYPE OF — THOSE TYPE OF SYSTEMS WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THERE’S A COMMERCIAL FACILITY WITHIN THAT AREA.

THEREFORE, DEPRECIATING THE VALUE OF THAT TRANQUIL, RURAL SETTING THAT WE’RE TRYING TO ALL OBTAIN THERE. AND THEN THE NOISE WAS ANOTHER CONCERN OF MINE. I KNOW THEY TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION BEING SUCH THAT IT WILL REDUCE THE NOISE. BUT I ASKED ABOUT WHAT OTHER DOGS BEING TIME HEAR THESE DOGS, BECAUSE IF OTHER DOGS HEAR THESE DOGS, THEY WILL BARK AND THEREFORE INDIRECTLY IT WILL AFFECT OUR — OUR NOISE LEVEL WITHIN OUR VALLEY. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. ASK OTHER THAN, THE LADIES — OTHER THAN THAT, THE LADIES SPOKE WELL. I DON’T THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR COMMUNITY REALLY WANTS.

I ASK THAT QUESTION AT OUR COMMUNITY MEETING AND THEY COOPERATE SAY THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BENEFICIAL TO US. MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO A BROADER COMMUNITY SUCH AS NASHVILLE. BUT NOT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WHERE THEY’RE BUILDING. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. WE’LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. QHO — WHO HAS 4:04. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTICE, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS. THE MATTER WAS HEARD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS SPECIFIC ZONE CHANGE THAT I’VE MENTIONED TO YOU. NOTICE WAS GIVEN OUT BY THE PUBLIC OFFICES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ON THIS EXACT ISSUE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THAT’S ALSO NOTICED PERIOD. WE DIDN’T HAVE ONE CONTACT FROM ANYBODY AT THOSE. THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME AND MADE THEIR COMMENTS. I’M NOT ANY DISPARAGEMENT ABOUT THAT, BUT I AM SAYING WE DID THIS THE EXACT RIGHT WAY. IT IS AS MR. TAYLOR MENTIONED, IT’S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, WHICH IS NOT THIS GROUP, HAS ALREADY MADE A DECISION THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED HERE, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, ET CETERA. I’M GOING ASK ONE OF THE MEMBERS — ONE OF THE MEMBERS ASKED I WISH THAT WOULD BE ASKED TO MR. FOAL TO MY RIGHT, IF THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. >> YES, COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE PLANNED CURRENTLY FOR SECURITY AND SAFETY OF THE FACILITY, FIRE SUPPRESSION, JUST HOW DO YOU KEEP IT SECURE. >> EXCELLENT. THE MASTER TRAINER WHO WILL BE DOING NOT ONLY TRAINING HIMSELF BUT LEADING THE OTHER TRAINERS, WILL LIVE ON ONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHICH I — THAT PICTURE DOES NOT SHOW BUT IT’S DIAGONALLY PROBABLY LESS THAN 150 TO 200 FEET AWAY.

THE COMPLETE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WILL BE MONITORED WITH CAMERAS. ALL OF THE FIRE DETECTION, CROW 2, AND — CO2, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS WHICH WILL BE MONITORED IN HIS HOUSE AND ADDITIONALLY IN MY HOUSE. SO WE WILL USE AS MUCH ELECTRONICS AS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT’S THERE 24 HOURS A DAY, AND FROM HIS HOUSE, WHICH IS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, THREE TO FOUR MINUTES TO DRIVE DOWN IF HE SEES SOMETHING THAT’S NOT RIGHT IN THE FACILITY AND CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. AND WE’D BE MORE THAN HAPPY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE OUR DIRECT TELEPHONE NUMBERS AT ANY TIME SO THAT THEY CAN CALL US AND IF THEY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS. I’D LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE QUESTION THAT ONE — THE LAST RESIDENT MENTIONED. HE ASKED ME IF I CAN’T HEAR THE DOGS BARKING IN YOUR FACILITY, BUT ANOTHER DOG CAN — CAN OTHER DOGS HEAR THEM. AND I ANSWERED HONESTLY, I DON’T KNOW WHAT ANOTHER DOG CAN HEAR IF I CAN’T HEAR IT.

I SIMPLY DON’T HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. BUT IF DOGS HEAR DOGS BARKING, YES, THEY DO GENERALLY BARK. SO IF THERE’S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I’LL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THEM. >> AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D LIKE TO ADDRESS WITH RESPECT TO SIGNAGE, WE HAVE PURPOSEFULLY NOW PUT SIGNAGE UP HERE BECAUSE THE GREATEST NUMBERS OF NEIGHBORS SAYS THEY DIDN’T WANT SIGNAGE BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT WAS GOING TO BRING ADDITIONAL ATTENTION TO THE FACILITY. WE’LL PUT UP SIGNAGE. IF THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE WANT, WE WILL DO THAT. I DON’T THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT SIGNAGE THERE, BUT IF THAT’S SOMETHING THEY’D REQUEST, WE’D BE WILLING TO DO IT. WITH RESPECT TO LIGHTS, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THERE’S NO MORE LIGHTING ON THIS FACILITY THAN THERE IS ON A REST SHALL HOUSE.

— RESIDENT SHALL HOUSE. IT’S — RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. NO DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE FAMRESIDENCE. WITH RESPECT TO THE NOISE, I THINK THAT’S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. THE GENTLEMAN SIT, TO MY RIGHT HAS EXCELLENT EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA. AND I’LL CONCLUDE BY MENTIONING, THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCILMAN, OTHER PEOPLE, TODAY WITH RESPECTS TO THE ACCESS BRITHIS INDIVIDUAL, THE MASTER TRAINING, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ALL THOSE BEING CONDITIONS. WE VOLUNTEER THOSE. WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO MEET CERTAIN SPECIFIC ITEMS, WHICH WE’VE MET FROM THE GET-GO. THOSE ARE READ OUT THERE. BUT WAY BEYOND THAT WE’RE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THEM. THEY’VE ALL BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TODAY. WE’RE WILLING TO DO THAT.% AND ARE ALSO WILLING TO MAKE IT NOT JUST OUR WORD BUT PUT IT IN THE ORDER ITSELF. I’VE REFERENCED THE LAW PREVIOUSLY WHICH IS RELATIVELY CLEAR AND THAT IS, IT’S THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, THE METRO COUNCIL, THAT DECIDES WHERE YOU CAN AND CAN’T HAVE CONDITIONAL USES.

THIS AREA, THIS USE, IS CLEARLY ALLOWED. THAT’S NOT THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD. THISTHAT’S BEEN MADE LEGISLATIV. THE LAW IS CLEAR IF YOU MEET THE CONDITIONS, IT HAS TO BE GRANTED. THAT’S WHERE WE ARE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. WE APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS THAT CAME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMRAIM MEETING AND CAME HERE TODAY. WE’RE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THE AREA. THE CLIENT OWNS OTHER PROPERTIES THERE.

WE WANT THE BEST RELATIONSHIP THAT WE CAN. AND WE THINK THIS MEETING TODAY WILL HELP PUT CONDITIONS IN THERE THAT THEY’LL BE HAPPIER WITH AND WE’RE WILLING TO DO IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESIES. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THAT ROAD, DRIVEWAY, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT PROPERTY — PUBLIC ROAD? WHAT IS THAT? >> IT’S A PRIVATE DRIVE. COMING OFF OF OLD CHARLOTTE, IT’S A PRIVATE DRIVE INTO THIS FACILITY THAT WILL BE EXPANDED BEYOND WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. >> WHAT ABOUT THE STEEP DISTANCE SLOPE, THE OPPOSITION TALKED A LOT ABOUT THAT AND YOU KNOW, HAVING CARS SWING AROUND OR, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF ACCIDENTS NEARBY. >> I THINK — I’LL ASK MR. DALE TO ANSWER THAT. I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. BUT BETTER THE ENGINEER. >> WELL, IT’S THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IS THE ONE THAT SLOPES OFF, OFF OF THE CURRENT ROADWAY. YOU SAW ANMAN OF THE ROADWAY. — AN IMAGE OF THE ROADWAY. SO THE PRIVATE DRIVE NEEDS TO BE RAISED UP SO WHEN SOMEONE IS SITTING THERE TO PULL OUT, THEY CAN BE SEEN AND THEY CAN SEE.

>> WILL IT BE LEVEL WITH OLD CHARLOTTE? >> YES, IT WILL BE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE. >> HOW MUCH FOOTAGE WOULD WE LEVEL? >> AT LEAST TWO CARS, I’D SAY, SO PROBABLY 40 FEET. >> WHAT ABOUT WIDENING IT? >> IT NEEDS TO BE WIDENED AS WELL. IT’S ONLY ENOUGH FOR ONE CAR. THAT TAKES AN YOU A BANKRUPT TURN INTO THE — AN ABRUPT TURN INTO THE PROPERTY. SO IT NEEDS TO BE WIDENED FOR TWO VECTS. >> ARE YOU COMFORTABLE — VEHICLES. >> ARE YOU COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT WIDE — >> SURE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DO.

DO YOU KNOW IF A SEPTIC TANK IS REQUIRED? I SEE NOTES ABOUT IT ON THE PERMIT TRACKING SHEET BUT I DIDN’T KNOW IF IT FULLY WAS REQUIRED — ACTUALLY WAS REQUIRED BY METRO. >> THIS WILL BE A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SO ONCE — YOU WERE GRANTED APPROVAL HERE, WE’LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GET APPROVALS FOR EVERYTHING. AND SEPTIC WILL BE ONE OF THOSE. >> AND I GUESS THIS COMMENT IS MORE FOR THE OPPONENTS. THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH EXTENSIVE PLAN REVIEW WITH METRO AND I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS WILL BE HANDLED THERE. THERE’S A RAMPS AND CURB CUT REVIEW WHICH WILL TAKE CARE OF THE ENTRY ISSUES. SO METRO, YOU KNOW, CODE OFFICIALS WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS. THERE’S GREETING PLAN REVIEW THAT WILL DEAL WITH THE STORM WATER ISSUES. GRADING PLAN REVIEW THAT WILL DEAL WITH THE STORM WATER ISSUES. AND THE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS AND ALL. SO THERE’S QUITE A BIT OF OVERSIGHT BY METRO CODE OFFICIALS ON THIS. >> WE AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THOSE.

WE AGREE — WE AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THOSE AS WE’RE OBLIGATED TO. WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND NOT FORCE OUR WAY IN THERE. >> I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT YOU KNOW, THAT’S A GREAT LIST THAT YOU HAD THERE. I THINK THERE WAS A MENTION OF A STREAM. AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT BY STORM WATER ALSO. THERE WILL MOST LIKE I STREAM BUFFER AND THAT WILL BE PART OF THIS REVIEW PROCESS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELTSES TO ADD — ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO. THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? THIS QUENT THROUGH THE — WENT THROUGH THE METRO COUNCIL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS PROCESS. SP PROCESS AND IT’S NOW IN FRONT OF US. SO WE HAD THE LETTER FROM THE COUNCILPERSON EARLIER WITH HIS CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A FEW MORE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS? >> I CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCERN THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE. AND SEEMED LIKE THEY’RE ALL GOING TO BE ADDRESSED. BY CODE? THE ENGINEERS? HOPEFULLY THEY’RE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS FOR GETTING IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY. >> I FEEL LIKE THE LIST IS LONG FOR THE CONDITIONS.

AND IT WOULD BE ALMOST TOO HARD FOR US TO TACKLE. SO I WOULD PREFER IF THEY COULD ALL WORK TOGETHER ON THE CONDITIONS AND BRIDGE THEM BACK TO US. — BRING THEM BACK TO US. I’M AFRAID WE WOULD MISS SOMETHING. >> I DON’T KNOW. I — WE’VE DONE THAT BEFORE WHERE — >> WE’VE HAD A LIST OF LIKE A DOZEN CONDITIONS, I THINK. >> I DON’T KNOW. I HAVE LIKE FOUR. YOU KNOW, THEY TALKED ABOUT SECURITY AND SAFETY, BUT THAT’S SOMETHING THAT METRO CODES HAVE — IT WAS A CONCERN. WE COULD TALK ABOUT THE ON-SITE PERSON, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE — IN MY MIND, THEY’VE ADDRESSED IT BY HAVING SOMEONE ON-SITE WITHIN 200 FEET. AND WITH ELECTRONICS SURVEILLANCE AND ALARM SYSTEMS AND THAT TYPE OF THING. I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN, BUT ALSO THINK THAT THEY — THEY’RE DOING AN AWFUL LOT TO MEET THAT NEED. BUT THE ONES THAT I HEAR, THE ONES THAT THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS SAID, THAT’S THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THAT’S AT LEAST 40 BUT LEVEL ON IS THAT RIGHT, WE’VE TALKED ABOUT — ON CHARLOTTE.

WE’RE TALKED ABOUT FEPTSING AROUND THE KENNEL — FENCING AROUND THE KENNEL, SO THERE’S ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE’VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPING AND MINIMIZING THE IMPACT OF THE BUILDING. AND I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ASKED THE APPLICAO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. I DON’T THINK IT’S OUR JOB TO PICK A COLOR OR WHAT NOT. BUT JUST TO ASK THAT THAT BE PART OF IT. AND THEN — AND THERE MAY BE ANOTHER ONE THE COUNCIL MEMBER MENTION AND WE CAN ASK WHAT THOSE ARE. >> OKAY. JOHN MICHAEL — >> YOU KNOW — >> THEY DIDN’T WANT SIGNAGE. >> THAT’S LEFT OPEN. THEY’VE AGREED TO NO SIGNAGE. BUT I DON’T KNOW THAT THAT’S — >> I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS, IF THIS WERE APPROVED AND THIS WAS AN UP AND RUNNING BUSINESS F THE NEIGHBORS SAID THEY WANT THE SIGN, THE APPLICANT WOULD PUT SOME SORT OF SIGN UP THERE.

>> THERE’S A LIGHT ON THE POLE. BUT I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT MEAN MORE HARM THAN GOOD DEPENDING UPON — I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S SUCH AN INEXPENSIVE EASY THING THAT IF IT BECOMES A PROBLEM, COULD BE DONE. SO I REALLY DO THINK IT KIND OF COMES DOWN TO THOSE THREE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED. >> SO JOHN MICHAEL, AS YOU KNOW, YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING, IT’S RECORDED AND TAPED AND WILL LATER BE ON YOU A TUBE CHANNEL. ARE YOU — A YOUTUBE CHANNEL. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WHAT WAS SAID BEING PART OF THE RECORD AND BEING PART OF THE CONDITIONS? >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU’RE REFERRING TO BASICALLY THAT WHICH IS BEING CONTRIBUTED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER, THE OBJECTIONS TO THE CASE, AND AGREED TO IN THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, YES, HE’LL WE’E ABLE TO EXTRACT THAT AND MAKE IT PART OF THE ORDER.

>> OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? >> WELL — I’LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE METRO COUNCIL APPROVED SP DISTRICT TO ALLOW THIS KENNEL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE DRIVEWAY BE IMPROVED TO AT LEAST A TWO-CAR WIDTH, WITH THE 40-FOOT LEVEL PART LEVEL TO OLD CHARLOTTE PIKE. THAT THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY LISTED BY THE METRO COUNCILMAN, REPRESENTING THE DISTRICT, BE INCORPORATED. AND THAT THE APPLICANT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACT OF THE BUILDING TO THE VALLEY WHEN CHOOSING THE COLOR OF THE BUILDING. AND THAT’S A RECOMMENDATION, NOT A REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE FOR REASONS THAT WE’VE SAID. >> AND I WOULD ALSO, THAT THE APPLICANT — THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE THE NEIGHBORS, THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, A POINT OF CONTACT THAT CAN BE CALLED AT ALL TIMES.

>> I AGREE. >> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I’LL SECOND. >> OKAY. MATION HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED? PASS PASS. — PASSES. >> BEFORE MOVING ON, I NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE WE’VE GOT ALL THE RIGHT INFORMATION IN ORDER FOR OUR NEXT CASE. >> THAT’S FINE. YOUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY MINUTE OF TODAY IS AS FOLLOWS. NASHVILLE TENNESSEE ASHEVILLELY PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE SEEING EYE DOG INDUSTRY IN AMERICA IN 1927, A YOUNG ACADEMY GRADUATE AND VANDERBILT GRADUATE NAMED MORRIS FRANK WHO WAS BLIND’S FATHER READ AN ARTICLE IN THE SATURDAY EVENING POST ABOUTWORLD WAR I-VETERANS BEING HELPED OUT BY JERMEN SHEP HEARD DOGS WHO COULD HE HAVE THEM MANEUVER AROUND.

AND THE THE YOUNG CHILD TRAVELED TO SWITZERLAND TO THE SCHOOL WHERE THEY WERE BEING TRAINED, BOUGHT BACK ONE OF THESE DOGS NAMED BUDDY, AND THE SEEING EYE DOG FOUNDATION WAS FOUNDED IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. IT LATER MOVED TO NEW JERSEY, BUT MORRIS AND HIS DOG BUDDY WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE DEVICE AND WAS RESPONSIBLE WITH — DEVICE AND WAS RESPONSIBLE WITH BRINGING A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THIS INDUSTRY, WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON’T KNOW WAS STARTED HERE.

SO JOHN MICHAEL? THAT IS A CASE Y HAS AN OPPONENT PRESENT. AND THEY HAVE JUST STEPPED OUTSIDE TO SPEAK WITH THE APPELLANT IN ORDER TO GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. THAT OF COURSE IS A PRACTICE THAT THE BOARD GREATLY ENCOURAGES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CASES AT HAND. HOWEVER, THE BOARD TOOK UP THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH INCLUDED THIS CASE DURING THEIR DISCUSSION. THE OPPONENT IS STILL HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE, SO THE APPROPRIATE MANEUVER IS TO TAKE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL THAT WAS GRANTED TO CASE 53 ON CONSENT. LET IT BE HEARD IN IT’S NORMAL ORDER ON TODAY’S DOCKET. AND THEN HEAR THE CASE AND MAKE THE DECISION THEREAFTER. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW 53 AND HEAR IT IN ITS REGULAR ORDER? >> SO MOVED TO WITHDRAW IT.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE INFORMATION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> WE WILL HEAR CASE NUMBER 53 AT ITS REGULAR PART IN THE AGENDA. JOHN MICHAEL. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2017-035 ON PENNINGTON BEND ROAD. THE ZONING MAP SHOWS THE R-15 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS AN AREA GREATLY AFFECTED BY THE FLOOD AND THUS THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS IN PLACE. THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY GIVES YOU A VIEW OF THE UNDEVELOPED LOTS HERE IN A ONE, TWO, THREE SEQUENCE. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE BOARD IS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AS YOU’LL SEE, THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD TAKE IT DOWN FROM 48 FEEDIRRED UPPER THE ZONING — 28 DOWN TO 20 IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK REDUCTION AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ZONING MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. THE SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWED THE UNDEVELOPED LOT IN ITS CURRENT. THE LOWER PICTURES, THE VIEW UP AND DOWN PENNINGTON BEND ROAD AND THE VIEW DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER. THE APPELLANT MR. YOST WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. IT’S MY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS OPPOSITION PRESENT IN THIS CASE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. WITH THAT, MR. YOST WILL HAVE — AND PLEASE COME FORWARD IF YOU WOULD. WITH ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU NEED TO BRING WITH YOU. YOU’LL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. IF YOU WISH TO SAVE ALSO TIME BACK FOR REBUTTAL, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO DO SO OUT OF THIS 15 MINUTES. THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION IS COMPLETE. MAKE THE DESIRES PRESENTMATION. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I’M JASON YOST WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING AND 212 OVER LOAD CIRCLE. TODAY WE COME TO YOU, THE OWNERS.

PROPERTY WOULD LIKE TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON THE SITE, SUBJECT SITE. AND BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN LINE, LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, IT IS — A HARDSHIP ON THEM TO CONSTRUCT THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK. THE SETBACK IS BASED ON PROPERTIES, TWO NORTH, TWO UTH SO, IT SUBJECT SITE. AND AS HE DESCRIBED, IT IS 48 FEET. WE’RE ASKING TO GO DOWN TO 20 FEET. BASISSED ON THE SITE PLAN HERE — BASED ON THE SITE PLAN HERE, THE HOME WOULD BE 48 FEET BY 24 FEET. IS THAT RIGHT? AND THE WAY IT’S SHOWN NOW, WE ARE OVER THE SETBACK. WE WENT TO THE STORM WATER COMMITTEE TO PROPOSE THIS STRUCTURE. AND WE WERE OFF OF THE BACK FLOWWAY LINE APPROXIMATELY .71 FEET. SO NOT A GREAT DISTANCE AT ALL. AND THEY ASKED IF WE COULD COME TO YOU AND REQUEST A VARIANCE SO THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY MOVE THE STRUCTURE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE FLOODPLAIN LINE.

THE STRUCTURE AS YOU SEE IT, I BELIEVE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING HOMES THERE BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD. AA LOT OF HOMES ARE NO LONGER THERE. THE OWNERS MOVED HERE FROM OHIO. WISCONSIN. SORRY. AND THEY THEY’D LIKE TO BUILD A HOME ON THE RIVER. SO WE COME TO YOU TODAY TO SEE IF WE CAN POSSIBLY GET THIS PASSED AND THEY CAN PROCEED ON WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION.

>> WAS THERE A HOME ON THIS SITE BEFORE THE FLOOD? >> I’M NOT SURE OF THAT. DO YOU KNOW THAT? >> YEAH. MY NAME IS DEATH WREN CASE KISINGER. NASHVILLE — NAME IS KENNETH KISINGER. THERE WAS A HOME ON THAT PROPERTY BEFORE THE FLOOD. AND IT WAS DAMAGED AND THEY ADDITION MANTLED IT. — DISMANTLED IT. AND WE OOLZ BOUGHT THE PROPERTY I — BOUGHT THE PROPERTY I GUESS THREE YEARS AGO AND WE’RE OUT-OF-TOWN BUYERS AND OUR REALTOR SHOWED US PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. THE RIVER AND WE FELL IN LOVE WITH IT. AND HE — THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THEIR REALTOR DIDN’T DISCLOSE ANYTHING ABOUT FLOODPLAINS. WE DIDN’T LIVE HERE DURING THE NASHVILLE FLOOD. SO WE UNKNOWINGLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. AND THAT’S WHY WE’RE COMING TO YOU WITH THIS HARDSHIP. >> DO YOU KNOW THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE? >> I DON’T. >> AND HOW MUCH — I GUESS I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE ON THIS DRAWING THE FLOODPLAIN STARTS. >> OKAY. SO SORRY. ON THE DRAWING THAT YOU WERE THERE. SO TO THE LEFT OF THE REAR OF THE HOME, THERE’S A CLUDE THERE AND — CLOUD THERE.

WAY LINE AND THE BACK OF THE HOME. >> I SEE — OKAY. FLOOD WAY LINE SHOWN RIGHT HERE. SO YOU’RE STILL — YOU’RE STILL A PRETTY GOOD WAYS AWAY FROM THAT. WHY DO YOU NEED 20 FEET, THEN? >> WITH THIS PLAN, WE WOULD BE AWAY FROM IT. BUT THIS IS THE PROPOSED PLAN THAT IS — >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THIS PLAN IS NOT — THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS NOT ON THE FLOOD LINE, RIGHT? >> NOT WITH THIS PROPOSED PLAN, NO, SIR. >> RIGHT. BUT I’M JUST SAYING IF THIS — >> THIS WOULD BE 10 FEET SHIFTED FROM WHERE WE WENT TO STORM WATER COMMITTEE. SO IT WOULD BE 10 FEET CLOSER TO THAT BACK LINE THERE. >> JOHN MICHAEL, CAN YOU PUT UP THE OTHER PICTURE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE FLOODWAY? >> SO THAT BLUE — WHERE THE BLUE BAROMETER IS IS THE LINE THAT I — PARAMETER IS THE LINE THAT I SPEAK OF ON HIS PROPERTY. >> SO I’M SORRY. STORM WATER WANT YOU CLOSER TO THE LINE OR FURTHER AWAY? >> FURTHER AWAY. >> AND THIS PLAN IS WHAT YOU’RE PROPOSING? >> YES. >> THAT WE’RE SEEING — >> IT IS FURTHER AWAY. THE OTHER PLAN — THIS IS FEET OFF THE FLOODWAY LINE.

IF OTHER PLAN WAS . — THE OTHER PLAN WAS .7 FEET. SO WE’VE SHIFTED TOWARD THE FRONTAGE ROAD 10 FEET. >> ARE YOU SAYING STORM WATER WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT THAT CLOSE? >> THEY DID NOT STAY THEY WOULDN’T ACCEPT IT. THEY JUST RECOMMENDED THAT — I MEAN, THE FLOODWAY LINE IS THE SETBACK. >> GOTCHA. >> BUT THEY WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF IT WAS FURTHER AWAY. THE HOME AS IT IS GROWING TO BE DESIGNED WILL — GOING TO BE DESIGNED WILL BE PLACED ON COLUMNS. SO IT WILL ACTUALLY BE EIGHT FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING GRADE. AND THEN IT WILL BE A TWO-STORY HOME ON TOP OF THAT. SO THEY’LL PARK UNDER THE STRUCTURE. AND THE HOME WILL ACTUALLY ELEVATE IT ABOVE THE BASEMENT — OR FLOOR ELEVATION.

>> I GUESS IF IT’S AN ELEVATED HOME, THEN WHY — I GUESS WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THAT MUCH FURTHER FROM — >> BECAUSE WE’RE — WE’RE NOT IN THE FLOODWAY BUT WE ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THE FLOOD LANE HAS BUFFERS — FLOODPLAIN HAS BUFFERS, 25 AND 50-FOOT BUFFER. TO BUILD ANYTHING IN THAT BUFFER WOULD BE A VARIANCE. SO THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO GO TO STORM WATER COMMITTEE TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING THERE. AND THERE’S A BASE FLOOR ELEVATION OF 4THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABOVE THAT LINE, WHICH IS LOCATED ACTUALLY IN THE ROAD. I BELIEVE I HAVE AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THAT LINE IN THE ROAD. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR FLOOR ELEVATION ABOVE THAT LINE. AND THAT’S THE CAUSE OF THE ELEVATED — >> YOU HAVE TO MEET THE ELEVATION TO BUILD EVEN WHERE YOU’RE SAYING NOW. >> YES. RIGHT NOW THAT FLOODWAY — THAT ELEVATION IS LOCATED ALMOST AT THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD. >> SO ARCHITECTS KNOW THIS, BUT BASICALLY YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD ANYTHING IN THE FLOODWAY. >> AT ALL. >> THE FLOODPLAIN, YOU COULD BUILD IN AND USUALLY YOU HAVE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. BUD THE FLOODWAY IS — YOU CAN’T.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, NO. >> WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOX NEXT AND YOU’LL — OPPOX OPPOX — OPPOSITION NEXT. LET’S HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> RICHARD LAWLER. I’M THE PRESIDENT OF — ASSOCIATION AND I’VE LIVED ON PENNINGTON BEND SINCE 1967. SO WE’VE BEEN THROUGH MANY OF THESE SITUATIONS. I SINCERELY FEEL SORRY FOR THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE I THINK THEIR REALTOR FAILED TO GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION THEY NEEDED ABOUT BUILDING ON PENNINGTON BEND. MY UNDERSTANDING AFTER THE FLOOD, BECAUSE WE HAD MANY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY ON MIAMI AVENUE, WHO HAD LOTS ON THE RIVER WHO ARE NOW UNABLE TO BUILD ON THOSE LOTS. BECAUSE OF THE OFFSET FROM THE FLOODWAY. THERE’S 75 FEET OFFSET REQUIRED. AND MAIB THEY CAN GET A — MAYBE THEY CAN GET A VARIANCE, BUT THAT’S WHAT’S REQUIRED. AND THEN WHEN YOU MOVE THE HOUSE 75 FEET AWAY FROM THE FLOODWAY, WHICH BY THE WAY MEANS THE AREA WHERE WATER IS ACTUALLY MOVING DURING THE FLOOD.

SO YOU’VE GOT THE RIVER BASICALLY AS THE FLOODWAY. WHEN IT’S IN FLOOD. SO A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE ON IAMI ARE NO LONGER TO BUILD ON THOSE LOTS. THEY’RE WORTHLESS. NOW — AND THAT’S A SHAME. AND I THINK METRO EVENTUALLY NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP THOSE FOLKS. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS — PUT THAT OTHER IMAGE UP THERE, PLEASE. NO, THE ONE WITH THE LOTS. THE LOTS AT THE SOUTH, THE LARGE LOT WITH THE GREEN HATCHING ON IT, IS METRO PROPERTY. AND THEN THOSE THREE LOTS ARE FOR SALE. THEY’RE PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND THE NEXT ONE DOWN IS MY DAUGHTER’S. AND THE ONE BEYOND THAT IS MINE. SO WE’RE VERY CLOSE TO THAT. I DON’T KNOW IF I GAVE YOU MY ADDRESS. IT’S 2313 PENNINGTON BEND. THERE ARE MANY OBJECTIONS TO CHANGING THE RULES. BUT I’M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MY DAUGHTER BECAUSE SHE’S A% LOT SMARTER THAN I AM. SO I’LL JUST SAY I OPPOSE IT. THE COUNCILMAN OPPOSED IT. I GOT AT LEAST 10 EMAILS FROM PEOPLE ON PENNINGTON BEND OPPOSING IT. AND — >> WHAT’S REALLY THE MAIN REASON THAT YOU OPPOSE THEM — >> I’LL LET HER GIVE YOU THAT. >> OKAY.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. >> MY NAME IS TRAVIS LAWMAKERLER. 2315 PENNINGTON BEND ROAD. MY HOME IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST HOME TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE SOME VACANT LOTS BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND THE PROPERTY. AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THERE’S NEVER BEEN A HOME ON THIS PROPERTY. I THINK HE’S CONFUSED WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH OF THAT. THIS PROPERTY AS WE WERE SAYING IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND DURING THE 2010 FLOOD, IT IS WAS UNDER SEVERAL FEET OF WATER. ALONG WITH TWO HOMES THAT WERE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. AND BOTH OF THOSE HOMES, THE CITY ALONG WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, SPENT MORE THAN $MILLION ON PENNINGTON BEND PURCHASING FLOOD DAMAGED HOME TO DEMOLISH THEM TO CREATE MORE OPEN SPACE FOR FLOOD CONTROL. SO I THINK IT’S INCONSISTENT TO THEN ALLOW A VARIANCE FOR A LARGER FOOTPRINT FOR THIS HOME THAT’S JUST FEET AWAY FROM WHERE WE’VE SPENT MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO CREATE MORE OPEN SPACE.

SO — AND ALSO, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE IS — SORRY. I’M NERVOUS. IS THAT THE PROPERTY — THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING UNUSUAL. THEY CAN’T NOT COMMENT TO THE GENERAL AREA AND AS MY DAD MENTIONED, THE ENTIRETY OF THIS SECTION OF PENNINGTON BEND THAT RUNS NEXT TO THE RIVER AND THE NEXT STREET TO THE NORTH OF US, MIAMI, ALL FACE THE SAME PROBLEM, WHICH IS THESE VERY NAR YOU ON LOTS SANDWICHED — NARROW LOTS SANDWICHED BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE ROAD. THERE’S A VERY SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE. IT WOULD BE AN INCONVENIENCE TO BUILD WITHIN THAT ENVELOPE, BECAUSE IT MAKES A VERY SMALL HOME. BUT THERE ARE A VERY SMALL HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT THEY’RE NOT ASKING FOR A SMALL VARIANCE. THEY’RE GOING FROM A — SETBACK TO A 20-FOOT INSPECT. AND THE — SETBACK. AND THE MAR JOTTER OF THIS HOME — MAJORITY OF THIS HOME IS WITHIN THE VARIANCE AREA.

IT’S NOT JUST A COUPLE FEET. THE MAJORITY OF THEIR HOME WILL BE IN THE VARIANCE AREA. I THINK THAT’S ALL I HAD TO SAY. I SENT A LETTER AND IT’S — >> YES, WE HAVE IT IN OUR PACKET. SO EMAIL IS ABOUT A PAGE LONG. ANY QUESTIONS? >> SO WHAT’S THE REASON THAT YOU’RE OPPOSED TO THE SETBACK VARIANCE? >> SO FLOOD CONTRO ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS. MY TAX DOLLARS AND YOURS WERE SPENT PURCHASING AND DEMOLISHING THE HOMES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD. AND THEY WANT TO BUILD ON A LARGER AREA THAN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO UNDER CURRENT CODES. SO MORE — THAT’S A LARGER FOOTPRINT. THAT MEANS LESS OPEN SPACE IS LESS FLOOD CONTROL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I GUESS — I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THAT.

BUT WHAT I HEARD THEM SAY IS THAT THEY’RE BUILDING A HOUSE ON STILTS, WHICH IS — YOU KNOW, I DON’T KNOW, PROBABLY GONE TO THE GULF AND SEEN ALL THE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE ’60s AND THEY GOT BLOWN AWAY BY HURRICANES ■AND NOW IT’S BUILT N STILTS. AND IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT THEY WERE DESCRIBING WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE THE IMPACT OF MAYBE 10 TREES.

INSTEAD OF A FLAT BUILDING. SO YOU KNOW — >> I SUPPOSE THAT’S TRUE. BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE PAD — YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF PAD — >> THE PAD WOULD BE CONCRETE. SO IT’S NOT PERMEABLE. AND ALSO, ONE OF THE POINTS COUNCIL MADE WHEN I THINK IN THE EMAIL HE SENT YOU WAS THAT THIS WOULD SET A PRECEDENT. AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PEOPLE PERFECT THERE PEOPLE — Y ALREADY FIVE LOTS ON PENNINGTON BEND WHERE THE PEOPLE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE EXEMPTIONS TO THE RULES TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE ROAD BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT FLOODWAY. AND INSTEAD OF BUILDING ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS — INSTEAD OF BUILDING FOUR HOUSES AS HE TENDED IS NOW ONLY GOING — INTENDED IS NOW ONLY GOING TO BUILD TWO BECAUSE HE CAN’T DO IT IN THAT PIECE OF LAND.

SO I THINK THAT’S THE PRESS — ONE OF THE BIG POINTS, THAT IS IMPORTANT TO THIS. >> RIGHT. THAT’S MY POINT. THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. AND IF YOU GRANT IT TO THEM, THEN YOU’RE GOING TO BE GRANTIG IT TO — OR, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME WANTING THE SAME TYPE OF VARIANCE, WHICH THEN — WHAT IS THE VARIANCE? >> THE PEOPLE RAILROAD COMING ARE MOSTLY — WHO ARE COMING ARE MOSTLY SPECTATORS. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT. AND I’M SINCERELY SORRY FOR THEIR SITUATION. YOU KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING IN EAST NASHVILLE. TEARING DOWN A PERFECTLY GOOD HOUSE ON A NICE LARGE LOT AND PUTTING IN FOUR OR FIVE VERY NARROW, HIGH HOUSES. THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED ON MIAMI. AND ON MIAMI ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE RIVER, THERE ARE THREE OF THEM IN A ROW. AND THEY’RE NOW RENTED OUT AS VACATION RENTALS FOR VERY LARGE PARTIES AND THERE’S BEEN A GOOD DEAL OF COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A FROM A TERRITORY PARTY IS LOUD — FRATERNITY PARTY IS A LOUD AND INTRUSIVE THING TO HAPPEN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY’RE MORE OR LESS HOTELS THAN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE’RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT ON PENNINGTON BEND. >> SO YOU’RE OPPOSED BECAUSE YOU WANT TO AVOID SOMETHING? IS WHAT I’M HEARING. >> WE’RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE’RE TRYING TO KEEP THE FLOOD DAMAGE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAPPEN IF WE HAVE ANOTHER BIG FLOOD FROM BEING ANYWORSE THAN IT IS. AND — ANY WORSE THAN IT IS AND TO KEEP METRO FROM BEING ABLIGED TO BUY MORE HOUSES DOWN THERE — OBLIGED TO BUY MORE HOUSES DOWN THERE AT A VERY HIGH PRICE. I THINK THAT’S PRETTY COGENT. >> MR. — ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO IS A REAL ESTATE AGENT OUT THERE ON THE PROPERTY FOR SALE DOWN THE ROAD? >> NO, I’M AN ARCHITECT. >> SIR? >> I’M AN ARCHITECT. >> ARCHITECT. >> BUT THERE’S A RICHARD KING AS A REALTOR ON THE SIGN. DOWN THE ROAD. THAT’S NOT YOU? >> I OWN THAT PROPERTY, YES. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU WERE OBJECTIVE ABOUT THAT. >> BUT I ALSO LIVE ACROSS THE RIVER AND I WATCHED THE FLOOD. SO — >> ON THE HIGH SIDE. >> BETWEEN MY HOUSE, WHICH IS THE FIRST HOUSE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS, AND THIS PROPERTY, THERE’S TWO LOTS THAT METRO OWNS WHERE THEY BOUGHT THEM OUT FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND THEN THERE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY FOR SALE.

>> RIGHT. I THINK — LET ME CORRECT WHAT YOU SAID. METRO DID NOT BUY THESE PROPERTIES. IT’S NOT GOING TO KEEP THAT AREA FROM FLOODING. THEY JUST DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE THE PEOPLE REBUILD — >> FLOOD CONTROL WAS ONE OF THE –S WITH JUAN OF THE GOALS — WAS ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE BUYOUTS. >> BUT THE MAIN GOAL WAS TO KEEP THOSE PEOPLE FROM REBUILDING IN AN AREA THAT WILL MOST LIKELY FLOOD AGAIN. I’M NOT SURE IF THOSE WERE EMPTY LOTS DURING OUR 2010 FLOOD. THE FLOOD WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY JUST AS BAD. WHETHER THERE’S A HUGHES ON IT OR NOT — A HOUSE ON IT OR NOT. AND METRO HAD TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. THEY COULDN’T BUY ALL THE HOUSES OVER THERE. SO THEY PICKED A CERTAIN PLACE TO STOP AND THAT’S KIND IN THE AREA WHERE WE’RE LOOKING AT. THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE BOUGHT MORE BUT THAT’S WHAT THEY PICKED, RIGHT? >> YES. IT DEPENDED ON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THAT WAS ESTIMATED. IF IT WAS OVER — >> OVER 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE HOME, YOU YOU COULD REQUEST A PART OF THE BUYOUT PROGRAM. >> AS YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD A LOT AND IF THERE WAS A HOUSE THERE, METRO PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT BUT IT WAS AN EMPTY LOT, THEY DIDN’T.

>> CORRECT. >> NO, RIGHT. >> BUT THAT PROPERTY WAS PROBABLY JUST AS PRONE TO FLOOD AS THE ONE THAT THEY BOUGHT OUT — >> YOU COULD MAKE THAT ARLGTD, YOU KNOW — ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT, ONE HOUSE DOESN’T ADD MUCH, OBVIOUSLY TO — YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS — ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT MORE AND MORE HOUSES DOES AFFECT IT. >> LET ME SAY TO YOU BECAUSE I OWN A HOUSE ON THE RIVER. I GOT FLOODED OUT DOWN THERE. I WAS OFFERED A BUYOUT FROM METRO. I DIDN’T TAKE IT. KEPT MY HOUSE. REBUILDING MY HOUSE. IF YOU WANT MOO TO — MEMAN METO — WANT ME TO, I’M RECUSE MYSELF. >> I’M NOT IMPUPPING YOUR HONESTY. I’M JUST POINTING IT OUT. >> — FROM VOTING. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. PLEASE COME BACK. >> JOHN, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, AND NOT — SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. >> IF YOU’RE RECUSING YOURSELF. YOU SHOULD LEAVE — >> HOW DID WE GET TO 48 FEET? I KNOW IT’S THE — AVERAGE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IS THERE ANY OVERVIEW WE CAN SEE — IS THERE AS OUTLIER OR — >> I DON’T HAVE ANY CALCULATIONS — >> HOW CLOSE THAT WE SEE IN THAT PICTURE IS TO THE STREET? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? >> DO YOU HAVE THE SURVEY? DO YOU HAVE A SURVEY AVAILABLE? >> YOU PRESENTED IT. >> IN THE SURVEY, FOR THE PROPERTY, THEY ACTUALLY TOOK THE EXISTING DISTANCES FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN PLACE AND THAT IS HOW THE CAME ABOUT. >> RIGHT. I’M ASKING IF THERE’S AN ANOMALY THERE. WERE THEY ALL — WERE ALL THE HOUSES IN THAT AVERAGE CLOSE TO 48 OR WAS — ONE 80 FEET AND THE REST 20 FEET AND THEREFORE IT SKEWED IT. >> THEY ONLY TAKE THE — THE PROPERTIES WITH HOUSES. ISN’T THAT CORRECT, JOHN? THE — NOT THE PROPERTIES, BUT — >> DO YOU KNOW HOW CLOSE THE HOUSE THAT WE SEE IN THIS PICTURE IS TO THIS STREET? >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT, YES, SIR.

>> TO YOUR POINT, I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THAT SINCE THE HOUSES ARE SO SPREAD OUT AND THERE’S SO MANY EMPTY PARCELS, THAT MATHEMATICALLY THAT AVERAGE SEEMS TO BE PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT, RELEVANT — >> THE HOME YOU SEE THERE IS. >> THE HOME YOU SEE THERE IS FEET AWAY. >> AND TELL ME, WHAT IS THE — THE ABSOLUTE FURTHEST YOU CAN — I KNOW YOU WANT 20. WHAT’S THE ANSWER SLIEWFT FURTHEST THAT — ABSOLUTE FURTHEST THAT YOU CAN BUILD? >> TAKEN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STORM WATER COMMITTEE THAT WE’LL HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF IF WE GET APPROVAL HERE, THIS WOULD BE THE CLOSEST. THEY REQUESTED US TO STAY AT LEAST 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE FLOODWAY LINE. SO ALMOST LIKE A SETBACK TO THE SETBACK. >> SO IF WE DON’T APPROVE THIS, IN ESSENCE YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT LINE AND BUILD WITHIN — FROM THAT — >> NOT BASED ON THE FEET. WHEN IS WITH DESIGNING THIS, I WENT OFF THE STANDARD R-15 SETBACK, WHICH IS 30 FEET. >> RIGHT. >> SO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AVERAGE SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING HOMES BEING 18 FEET LARGER THAN WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, ORIGINALLY, YES, WE WOULD BE INSIDE THE 30 FEET AND SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE FLOODWAY LINE.

>> BUT NOT THE CONTEXTUAL AVERAGE. >> BUT NOT THE CONTEXTURAL AVERAGE. >> I’M NOT TRYING TO MUDDY THE WATER, IF YOU WERE BUILDING ON THAT ORIGINAL LINE, THAT THE — THAT YOU’RE NOW FEET AWAY FROM, HOW — AND YOUR HOUSE IS HOW DEEP? >> IT IS 40 FEET. >> SO HOW MUCH OF OF YOUR HOUSE WOULD HANK OVER THE — >> — HANG OVER — >> OVER THE 48.1. >> IF IT WENT BACK TO — >> SHOWS HOW FAR BACK THE FLOODWAY IS. >> IF WE WENT BACK TO THE .1 OR 71 FEET OFF THE FLOODWAY LINE? >> YEAH. >> IT WOULD BE 18 FEET OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. I MEAN OVER THE SETBACK LINE. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. INSTEAD OF 28 FEET, YOU WOULD BE ASKING FOR 18 FEET. >> RIHT. SO IT WOULD BE 18 FEET OVERHANG THERE. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I TRY TO — >> THE — THE CARS, WILL IT BE CONCRETE, ASPHALT? >> IT WILL BE A CONCRETE PAD UNDERNEATH. BUT THE REST OF THE HOME IS IMPERVIOUS AS WELL. SO WE WOULDN’T BE ADDING ANY OTHER IMPOST IMPERVIOUS AREA EXR THE FOOD PRINT ITSELF.

AND IT WILL BE ELEVATED — FOOTPRINT ITSELF. AND IT WILL BE ELEVATED ON COLUMNS. AND SO WE’RE REQUIRED TO BALANCE THE SITE WITH STORM WATER COMMITTEE. SO ANY GRADE THAT WE ADD TO THE SITE, WE HAVE TO TAKE AWAY. SO THERE’S A MINIMAL GRADING. JUST TO TO MAKE THE DRIVE INTO E PROPERTY. AND THEN THE SLAB IS PRETTY MUCH FLAT, SLANTING AT 2% UNDER THE HOME. SO WE NEED — AFFECT TWO GRADE LINES, TWO CONTOURS, THE 418 AND THE 419. >> AND THE SLAB UNDER THE HOUSE IS REQUIRED TO BE A SLAB? >> IT’S NOT. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT’S NOT ADDING ANY IMPERVIOUS TO THE AREA. SO IF IT WAS GRAVEL — OR GRASS, IT WOULD STILL — WE WOULD STILL BE ADDING THAT IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR RAIN, BECAUSE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME. >> OF THE ROOF, RIGHT. >> SO — >> I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> I GUESS — WHAT I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IS THERE A PATHWAY IN MY MIND FOR YOU TO BUILD SOMETHING HERE AND — I’M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TOUGH TIME WITH 20 FEET.

AND SO I’M JUST ASKING SOME QUESTIONS TO MAKE IT — >> OKAY. >> SO HOW CLOSE ARE YOU TO THE SIDE SETBACKS AND WHY IS IT NOT FATTER THAN LONGER? >> OKAY. >> TO GIVE YOU FURTHER SETBACK FROM THE STREET? >> SO THE SIDE SETBACKS FOR THIS PROPERTY ARE FIVE FEET. AND WE ARE 13 FEET AWAY ON BOTH SIDES. SO IT’S CENTERED ON THE PROPERTY. TRYING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS. GETTING CLOSER TO THE ROAD WOULD BE LESS IMPACT ON THEM THAN CLOSER TO THEIR HOMES. WITH IT BEING AN ELEVATED STRUCTURE, IT’S GOING TO LOOK HIGHER, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S CLOSER. SO IF WE WERE TO MAYBE RESITUATE THE HOME OR DO A NEW FLOOR PLAN WHERE IT’S CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORS, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MORE OF AN IMPACT TO THEM VERBALLY THAN IF WE WERE — VISUALLY THAN IF WE WERE TO BE AWARDED THIS SETBACK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OTHER CONCERNS? OKAY. SO FOR THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION IN THE FLOODWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WE’LL BE ELEVATED ON COLUMNS ABOVE THE BASE FLOOR ELEVATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY STORM WATER COMMITTEE.

SO THE ONLY OBSTRUCTIONS THAT WE’LL ADD ARE THE COLUMNSES THEMSELVES. AND — COLUMNS THEMSELVES AND AN OPEN STAIRCASE, NOT CONCRETE. IT WILL BE FABRICATED OF METAL. SO THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN OBSTRUCTION THERE. WE’RE REQUIRED BY STORM WATER COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE A MITIGATION PLAN THAT OFFSETS THAT IMPERVIOUS AREA. SO WE’LL ADD PLANTINGS AS REQUIRED BY THAT COMMITTEE TO OFFSET IMPERVIOUS AREA ADDED IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THIS IS A SMALL HOME FOOTPRINT-WISE. ONLY 960 SQUARE FEET. IT’S TWO LEVELS SO THAT WOULD DOUBLE. GROSS AREA. BUT IT’S A SMALL HOME. FOOT PRINT-WISE. SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING HOMES THERE. THE SIDE MUST BE BALANCED, LIKE I SAID. MINIMAL GRADING. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A RENTAL PROPERTY. THEY MOVED HERE WANTING TO LIVE ON THE RIVER. AND THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY WITH THAT IDEA TO LIVE ON THE RIVER.

FOR THE STORM WATER COMMITTEE, CERTAIN PROPERTIES ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THEIR FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE ON THE SIDE REQUIRES A TREAT AND DETAIN. THIS EXCEPT FROM THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO LOT AREA. WE’RE LESS THAN .3% OR .3% OF THE LOT AREA IS IMPERVIOUS NOW. SO WE’RE EXEMPT FROM THAT. SO WE DON’T HAVE TO TREAT OR DETAIN ANY STORM WATER. SO IT WAS BENEFICIAL FOR US TO GO TALK TO STORM WATER COMMITTEE TO CALL ON THEM AND SEE WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THEY HAD WITH THIS STRUCTURE ON THIS SITE. AND I BELIEVE THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THEIR CONCERNS — >> I’M SORRY IF YOU ANSWERED THIS.

BUT DO YOU — WITHOUT ANY OF THE VARIANCES, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE? WHAT THAT WOULD BE? >> YOU’RE BRAVE DOING MATH ON THE FLY. >> PUT ME ON THE SPOT. >> ENGINEERS THAT TELL YOU THAT. >> SO IT’S — THE DEPTH-WISE, FROM FRONTAGE ROAD TO FLOWWAY LINE, WE WOULD HAVE FLOODWAY LINE, WE WOULD HAVE 24 FEET AND THAT’S TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION STORM WATER’S REQUEST TO STAY OFF THAT LINE MORE. BUT IF WE WERE RIGHT ON THAT LINE IT WOULD BE 23 1/2 FEET THAT WAY. AND IF THE LOT IS 50 FEET WAY, YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TWO SETBACKS OF FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE, WE COULD GO 40 FEET LENGTH THERE. SO 40 BY 23 1/2, IF WE WERE ON EVERY SETBACK LINE EXACTLY.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I WANT TO ASK, HAVE YOU SEEN THE LETTER FROM THE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, PHIL CLEBURNE, WHO COMMENTED ABOUT THIS IN ESSENCE BEGGED US NOT TO APPROVE THIS. AND TALKED ABOUT THIS DITCH THAT SEPARATES THE LOT IS A MAIN DRAINAGE DITCH AND GETS INCREASINGLY DEEPER AND — I SUPPOSE YOU DID BRING THAT UP WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO STORM WATER. >> YES, NAM. WE WILL NOT AFFECT THAT DITCH AT ALL. THAT DITCH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 13 FEET BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DITCH REMAINS. WE WILL DO NO GRADING IN THE DITCH. SO THAT FLOODWAY OR WATER — NATURAL WATERWAY, IT WILL REMAIN AS IS. WE WILL NOT — LIKE I SAID, THE GRADING IS VERY MINIMAL. WE’RE ONLY TOUCHING TWO CONTOURS AND THAT’S JUST TO GET THE SLAB AT A REASONABLE LEVEL SO WHEN THEY GET OUT OF THEIR CAR UNDER THE HOUSE, THEY DON’T GO ROLLING DOWN THE HILL INTO THE RIVER. SO IT’S MINIMAL GRADING. AND I HAVE TO BUY STORM WATER COMMITTEE — MAKE THIS SITE BALANCE. SO IT IS VERY, VERY LITTLE DISTURBANCE ON THE SITE, JUST SET FOR THE COLUMNS — EXCEPT FOR THE COLUMNS THAT WILL BE DRIVEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS VERTICAL.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE’VE HAD 10 LETTERS OPPOSING THIS HOUSE BEING BUILT ON THIS LOT? >> NO, MA’AM. >> SOME — >> I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION. THIS IS THE FIRST COMING TO THIS MEETING. THIS IS THE FIRST I’VE HEARD OF IT. >> TO THE BOARD MEMBERS, IT’S WORTHY OF NOTE THAT THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION COME TO THE BOARD IN OUR FILE AND DON’T GO DIRECT TO THE APPELLANTS IN THOSE CASES. >> AND I’M NOT AWARE OF THOSE. BUT IF THEY ARE — THEY FOLLOW SUIT TO THE OBJECTION HERE TODAY, THEY SEEM TO BE CONCERNED WITH ADDING OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLOODPLAIN. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE LIKE SHE SAID, IF YOU ADD ONE HOUSE, THAT’S NOT GOING TO ADD THAT MUCH OBSTRUCTION TO IT. AND MAKE THE WATERS ELEVATE EVEN HIGHER DURING A FLOOD. AND IF YOU DO SEVERAL HOMES, BUT IF ALL THOSE HOMES ARE ON STILTS, THEN THAT IMPACT IS MINIMAL. SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PROPOSING TODAY. THE IMPACT IS THE — THE COLUMNS ARE TWO FEED IN DIAMETER.

SO I THINK THERE’S 12 OF THEM. SO THAT’S 24 SQUARE FEET THAT WE’RE ADDING TO THE FLOODPLAIN. >> WE ALSO RECEIVED AT LEAST ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT. >> YES, WE DID. >> WHICH IS PROMISING. >> SAYS SOMETHING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF? >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? THESE ARE — AND MR. KING HAS SAID HE’S RECUSING HIMSELF. HE’S ARE CASES THAT, YOU KNOW, DURING THE FLOOD SIX YEARS AGO, AS WAS NOTED, METRO BOUGHT HOUSES AND THEN TORE THEM DOWN AND THEN METRO STILL OWNS THIS LAND. SO TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLE FROM BUILDING IN AN AREA THAT MOST LIKELY THE NEXT BIG FLOOD WILL BE DAMAGED BY.

SO AS I POINTED OUT, THOUGH, IF YOU HAD AN EMPTY LOT NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT METRO BOUGHT OR IN BETWEEN, METRO WOULDN’T HAVE BOUGHT YOUR EMPTY LOT. THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT JUST THE PROPERTIES WITH HOUSES ON THEM. >> AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, AS FAR AS THE CONTEXTURAL SETBACK, I THINK THIS IS SUCH AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WITH SO MANY VACANT LOTS AND SO MUCH DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DATA POINTS, THAT I’M — I’M WILLING TO GIVE A VARIANCE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ENGINEER’S RESPONSE CORRECTLY, THAT YOU KNOW, THAT WHAT THEY CAN BUILD BY RIGHT ISN’T ANY MORE OR LESS INTRUSIVE THAN WHAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR. I MEAN, HE SAID — ROUGHLY 20 BY 40, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> 23 1/2. >> AND I THINK WHAT THEY’RE SHOWING IS 24. BY 40. IT’S ORIENTED 90 DEGREES. TO THAT SITUATION.

SO YOU KNOW, THEY’RE NOT ASKING TO BUILD ANYTHING MORE INTRUSIVE THAN IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE FLOOD. AND SO THAT FOLLOW — FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC, IF YOU’RE STILL FOLLOWING, THE ONLY ISSUE THEN IS THE SETBACK AND IS IT — YOU KNOW, AN ODD SETBACK. AND I DON’T THINK THERE’S ENOUGH DATA OR RELEVANT DATA TO SAY THAT IT IS ODDLY PLACED ON THE LOT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE. THAT MAKE PERFECT SENSE IN MY HEAD. >> THAT TOTALLY DOES. AND YOU KNOW, I — I FEEL THAT THEY WOULD — EVERYTHING I’VE HEARD SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE’D LIKE TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THIS FAMILY TO BUILD A HOME. AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT — A LOT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCE ARE MET IN TERMS OF THE — THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY AND I’M STRUGGLING WITH THIS, IS IT 20 FEET OR IS IT — YOU KNOW, MORE THAN 20 FEET. I THINK THAT THE ORIENTATION, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S THE DITCH OR — I DIDN’T — YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH 20, I’M NOT GOING TO STRESS OVER IT TOO MUCH.

BUT THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT THE 20 THAT FELT A LITTLE CLOSE. BUT IT’S — YOU KNOW, FOR THAT ROAD. BUT THERE WERE GOOD REASONS GIVEN FOR IT. AND SO IF YOU ALL BUY THAT, YOU’RE THE ARCHITECTS AND DEAL WITH THIS EVERY DAY. >> I CAN BUY IT BECAUSE OF THE STORM WATER COMMITTEE. THAT’S WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED. AND LIKE DAVID SAID, IT’S REALLY — THE CONTEXTURAL STREET SETBACK IS APPLIED HERE BECAUSE OF THE BULK REGULATIONS, BUT THERE REALLY IS NO CONTEXT. SO IT’S REALLY ONE OF THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. >> OKAY. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I’LL MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE OF FINDING THE HARDSHIP IS THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE TOPOGRAPHIC ISSUES ON THE SITE. >> OKAY. >> I’LL SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? AND MR. KING HAS RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. SO IT PASSES. JOHN MICHAEL? >> THE NEXT CASE THAT WILL BE HEARD BY THE BOARD TODAY IS CASE 2017-037.

THAT CASE IS INVOLVING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY AT 2111 SIMMONS AVENUE. THAT IS AN ITEMS A APPEAL BASED ON THE ZONING’S DEN YEAL OF A PERMIT. — DENIAL OF A PERMIT. ZONE MAP SHOWS AN OVERINTERVIEW OF THE AREA IN — OVERVIEW OF THE AREA. AERIAL MAPS GIVES YOU AN ORIENTATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN QUESTION. AND A SIMPLE PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS DATED FROM THE TAX ASSESSOR’S MAPS. WE’LL INVITE THE APPELLANT MR. BRENT MILLER TO COME FORWARD. IS IT BOARD MEMBERS, WE ALSO RECEIVED — A LETTER — OR AN EMAIL FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHICH I’M NOT-TO-TIVE MADE IT — NOT POSITIVE MADE IT INTO YOUR PACKET OR NOT.

I’LL TRY TO PRODUCE THAT AS MR. MILLER COMES FORWARD. >> JOHN MICHAEL, THAT LETTER WAS HANDED — PASSED OUT TO US FROM MIKE FREEMAN. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU, AS I STRUGGLE TO FIND THE EMAIL. >> HE ADDRESSES 37 AND 38. >> THAT’S CORRECT. THOSE ARE BOTH CASES INVOLVING THE SAME APPELLANT. SO THE COUNCIL MEMBER’S COMMENTS WILL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. WITH THAT, MR. MILLER, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION PRESENT FOR CASE 37 INVOLVING 2911 SIMMONS AVENUE? >> YES. >> WITH THAT, THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. MR. MILLS, ONCE YOU’VE INTRODUCED YOURSELF, FEEL FREE TO SAVE BACK ANY TIME YOU WISH FOR REBUTTAL OUT OF THE 15 MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS BRENT MILLER. I LIVE AT 2911 SIMMONS AVENUE. I’VE BEEN LIVING THERE SINCE 2011. >> WHERE ARE YOU FROM ORIGINALLY? YOU LOOK FAMILIAR? >> I’M FROM KENTUCKY. >> ELTON. I GREW UP IN ELTON. >> DID YOU GO TO TODD CENTRAL? >> I DID. >> I REMEMBER YOU. NOW THAT I SEE YOU. >> ENOUGH ABOUT THAT. >> OKAY. >> IT HAPPENS. SOMETIMES WE — >> OKAY.

SO MR. MILLER, WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHAT HAPPENED? >> WELL, I GOT CITED FOR NOT — I OWN A DUPLEX. I HAVE A HOUSE. I STARTED RENTING OUT PART OF MY HOUSE, AND DIDN’T REALIZE I HAD TO BUY A PERMIT FOR THAT. >> SO WHEN DID YOU FIND OUT YOU HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT? >> WHEN I GOT — WELL, I THOUGHT — I JUST DIDN’T DO IT. I WAS SUPPOSED TO. AS SOON AS I GOT THE LETTER, I WENT TO DO IT. AND THEN THEY WOULDN’T LET ME DO IT. SO THEY SAID I HAD TO APPEAL AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. >> SO YOU GOT THE LETTER AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU GOT THE LETTER? >> I WENT DOWNTOWN TO WAIT IN LINE FOR FOUR AND A HALF HOURS TO GET A PERMIT. >> AND THEN THEY SAID WHAT? >> WE CAN’T SELL YOU A PERMIT BECAUSE YOU GOT THIS LETTER.

>> OKAY. >> SO HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN RENTING THIS PROPERTY? >> ABOUT — I STARTED ABOUT THE FIRST OF DECEMBER. WELL, I’D BEEN RENTING IT LONG TERM, YOU KNOW, FOR A WHILE. >> LIKE SIX MONTHS, A YEAR, OR OVER 30 DAYS? >> LONG TERM? >> YES — >> NO, THREE YEARS. >> TO THE SAME PERSON, NOT LIKE PEOPLE COMING AND GOING. >> NO, NO. IT WAS A LEASE. >> OKAY. >> LIKE A YEAR. >> A YEAR LEASE. BUT THE GUY HAD BEEN THERE FOR — FOR THREE YEARS. IT WAS A LEASE-BACK IN 2012. >> WHEN DID YOU START SHORT-TERM RENTAL? >> AROUND THE FIRST OF DECEMBER.

>> THIS YEAR. >> TWO MONTHS AGO. >> TWO MONTHS AGO YES. >> WHY DID YOU START AND WHY DID YOU HEAR THERE THIS AIRBNB SHORT-TERM RENTAL PHENOMENON? >> I HAD A FRIEND DOING IT IN WEST NASHVILLE AND SHE SAID IT’S REALLY GOOD. YOU OUGHT TO DO YOUR PROPERTY THAT WAY. I SAID I’VE GOT A RENTER. AND WHEN THAT RENTER LEAVES, YOU SHOULD DO IT. AND THAT WAS LIKE NINE OR TEN NOSING A O. AND EVENTUALLY — MONTHS AGO.

AND EVENTUALLY THEY DID PUT IN LEAVE. >> AND YOU LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS? >> YES. >> THIS IS YOUR PERSONAL HOME AND YOU RENT THE OTHER SIDE SHORT TERM. IT’S REALLY A TOP AND BOTTOM, BUT YEAH. >> OKAY. SO I THINK YOU HAVE THE NEXT CASE UP, SO YOU DON’T IN THAT HOME? >> NO, I DON’T. >> JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I KNEW WHERE EVERYBODY LIVED THAT’S ON THESE TWO CASES. OKAY. SO BASICALLY, AS SOON AS — YOU STARTED RENTING IN DECEMBER. YOU GOT A LETTER. >> RIGHT. I GOT A LETTER BUT I DIDN’T GET THE LETTER FOR A WHILE BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR CHRISTMAS. THEY SENT IT AT — ACCORDING TO THE LETTER, DECEMBER 19th. AND I WENT OUT OF TOWN — >> ARE YOU STILL RENTING THE PROPERTY OR HAVE YOU — >> NO, THEY VERY SPECIFIC — NOT — >> DID YOU HAVE ANY RENTERS BOOKED IN ADVANCE WHEN YOU GOT THE LETTER? >> RIGHT.

BUT — >> DID YOU? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE RENTERS? >> I CANCELED THEM. >> YOU DID? >> YES. >> HOW MANY? >> THERE’S ONLY LIKE ONE. >> BUT YOU CANCELLED IT? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. HIS APPLICATION WAS JANUARY OF 2017, CORRECT? >> YES, MA’AM. >> AND YOU JUST STARTED RENTING IN DECEMBER OF 2016? >> YES, MA’AM. >> OKAY. WELL, SO HE WASN’T DENIED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 4. I’M SORRY. DOES THAT SAME-SEX COUPLE APPLY, DOES THIS DENIAL, THESE NEW STANDARDS THAT WE FOLLOW — THESE STANDARDS APPLY — CAN WE APPLY THOSE TO ANY APPLICANT THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED? >> THE LATTER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION AND SO YOU’LL BE INVITED TO COME BACK AND YOU’LL HAVE 14 1/2 MINUTES TO TALK SOME MORE. SO OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON FOR BEING OPPOSED. >> YEAH. MY NAME AND JEFF MIRLDZ. MY ADDRESS IS 4216 BRUSH HILL ROAD. I’M NO RELATION TO THE APPELLANT. >> YOU DID NOT GROW UP IN ELKIN, KENTUCKY. >> I DID NOT, NO, SIR.

I PRACTICED LAW IN NASHVILLE OVER THE LAST 24 YEARS. AND I’M — I’M — I HAVE NO REAL CONCERN OR CONNECTION WITH CASE NUMBER 2017-037 OR 38. BUT I DO WITH RESPECT TO CASE NUMBER 041 AND I WANTED TO PUT THIS ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE I — I’M GOING TO BE LATE. BUT I’M WANTING TO MAKE SURE IT WAS OUT THERE. >> ARE YOU NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE CASES? >> NOPE, I AM. BECAUSE MY POINT APPLIES TO ALL THESE.

THIS ONE JUST LIKE THIS ONE, THIS WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T OBTAIN A RENTAL PERMIT PRIOR TO OPERATION OR ADVERTISING IT. APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, HE LET OUT THAT HE WAS ADVERTISING IT ON AIRBNB OR BBRO PRIOR TO OBTAINING A PERMIT. THE CODE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE — NOBODY WILL OPERATE OR ADVERTISE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT. AND THE PENALTY FOR DOING SO IS — AS THIS BODY CERTAINLY KNOWS, IS TWOFOLD. ONE IS A $50 PER DAY FINE, WHICH I THINK WHEN YOU CONSIDER IT, THAT’S KIND OF DIMINIMUS WHEN PEOPLE ARE RENTING THEM OUT FOR 350, 400 DOLLARS A DAY.

— REALLY, THE ONLY PENALTY THAT HAS ANY MEANING HERE IS THE — IF YOU DO SO WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT, THEN YOU’RE SUBJECT TO A ONE-YEAR PERIOD FROM BEING FOUND OF DOING SUCH BEFORE YOU CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A PERMIT. I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY PENALTY THAT HAS ANY TEETH OR MEAT HERE AND IT’S NONDISCRETIONARY. YOU EITHER HAVE A PERMIT AND — OR NOT. AND IF YOU DON’T IF YOU VISIT OR OPERATE, THEN THERE SHALL BE — SHALL — BE A ONCE YEAR WAITING PERIOD. — ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD. THERE’S NO DISCRETION. >> YOU DON’T — THIS ISN’T THE NEWEST ORDINANCE. >> I PULLED THE ORDINANCE OFF THE METRO GOVERNMENT WEBSITE JUST TODAY. 216-2017. >> THIS BOARD NOW HAS FURTHER DISCRETION TO INTERPRET THAT ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. WELL — >> AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE. THIS IS A DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD THAN KIND OF GERMANTOWN OR HILLSBORO VILLAGE OR WEST NASHVILLE.

THE NEXT CASE THAT WE HAVE AND I’M SURE THIS CASE WITH THE SAME APPLICANT, HE’S CHARGING $79 A NIGHT. SO HE’S NOT — YOU KNOW, CHARGING HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS HERE. >> WELL, THAT MAY BE THE CASE. BUT — AND SO $50 MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THAT SENSE. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF THE CODE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PENALIZE PEOPLE BY MAKING THEM WAIT A YEAR IN ORDER TO — IF THEY DON’T GET A PERMIT, THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED. AND I DON’T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY DISCRETION BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS EITHER IGNORANT OF THE LAW OR DOESN’T — OR IS WILLFUL. I DON’T — I THINK YOU’RE EITHER PERMITTED OR NOT. AND YOU EITHER COMPLY OR YOU DON’T. AND IF YOU DON’T, THEN YOU’RE SUBJECT TO THE ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD. >> MR. MILLER, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS MYSELF.

BUT IT’S UP TO ONE YEAR. IT SHALL BE UP TO ONE YEAR. IT’S NOT IT SHALL ONE YEAR. THAT’S WHAT — HOW IT READY NOW. SO WE DO HAVE SOME DISCRETION. AND THAT’S WHY WE WANTED MORE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AS TO THE REASONS FOR HIS LACK OF PERMIT. >> AND FOR CLARITY FOR THE BOARD, MR. MILLER IS LIKELY READING FROM THE ONE OF THE ORIGINAL ITERATIONS AND I BELIEVE MISS CHAPPELL IS CITING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1 TO THAT ORDERS WHICH WAS CODIFIED SEPTEMBER 21, 2016. >> OKAY. WELL, I’VE GOT — WHAT I HAVE HERE, SO AS AMENDMENT 1 TO ORDINANCE BL22015 — THERE SHALL BE A ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FINDING.

I PULLED THIS OFF THIS MORNING WHEN IF GOVERNMENT METRO WEBSITE, SO I ASSUME THAT IT WAS — >> SO YOU ADMITTED YOU DON’T LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU’RE KIND OF ALSO INTERESTED IN SOME OTHER CASES. SO WHY ARE YOU — DOES THIS CONCERN YOU SO MUCH? >> WELL, I — I HAVE — I’M INTERESTED IN THE DEBATE ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS. I AM FOLLOWING IT PRETTY CLOSELY. I HAVE — I TAKE ISSUE WITH PEOPLE OPERATING SHOOTER TERM RENTALS — SHORT TERM SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> HOW MANY BILLS ARE CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE METRO COUNCIL — >> I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO AND FOUR MORE FILED ON FIRST READING. SORRY, THAT’S MY BEST ESTIMATE. THERE ARE SIX. >> SO ROUGHLY FIVE OR SIX. SO WE’RE NOT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> SO IF YOU’RE REALLY INTERESTED IN THEM, WE INVITE YOU TO CONTACT YOUR COUNCILPERSON OR SOME OF THESE SPONSORS AND GO DOWN AND TALKING TO THEM. >> WELL, I AM, SIR. BUT I THINK IN THIS — WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUR IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, THOSE — YOU’RE EITHER COMPLIANT OR NOT. I DON’T THINK IT GETS INTO THE QUESTION OF WHY YOU WEREN’T COMPLIANT IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.

>> RIGHT. BUT AS — >> I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. MILLER, I UNDERSTAND FROM SOMEONE WHO SPOKE HERE THAT AIRBNB AT LEAST, AND I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE BBRO, HAS PUT UP A NOTICE ON THEIR PAGE THAT ONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT IN THE CITY OF NASHVILLE. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT PAGE AND ARE YOU AWARE OF IF THAT’S TRUE OR NOT? >> NO, BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE — I DON’T ENGAGE IN THAT AREA.

WE DON’T RENT OUT OUROUS AND I DON’T — HAVE NOT RENTED IN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL SPACE IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. >> NO, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WHAT MS. CHAPPELL POINTED OUT EARLIER, IT SAYS SHALL BE UP TO ONE YEAR. SO THE OLD STATUTE SAID A YEAR. AND SO NOW IT’S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THIS BOARD TO DETERMINE INTO ONE YEAR WHAT THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE. SO IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT STATUTE, THE METRO COUNCIL IS THE ONE THAT CAN CHANGE IT.

WE NOW HAVE THE DISCRETION JUST TO DETERMINE ANYTHING BETWEEN ONE DAY AND A YEAR TIME FOR THESE CASES. >> WELL, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF THE STATUTE HAS BEEN AMENDED, THEN IT’S NOT REFLECTED ON THE CURRENT WEBSITE, THEN IT WOULD BE — I WOULD URGE THE BOARD IN THESE CASES TO NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND MAKE THESE PEOPLE BE SUBJECT TO THAT FULL ONE-YEAR REQUIREMENT OF WAITING.

THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS A BIG ISSUE. AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE OPERATING THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED. AND JUST WILLFULLY. AND THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY GIVES ANY BITE TO THIS BEYOND THE $50 A DAY WASHINGTON IS THAT IF — ISSUE IS THAT IF YOU ARE CAUGHT AND YOU WANT TO COME GET PERMITTED, THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR.

AND THAT’S THE ONLY VEIN THAT REALLY GIVES IT ANY KIND OF TEETH IN MY OPINION. AND SO I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THAT SITUATION. AND NOT EXERCISE THE DISCRETION WOULD NOT BE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. >> BUT THERE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WE HEAR. >> YOU’RE ENTITLED TO, YES. AND LIKE I SAID, ON NUMBER 041 IS ON MY STREET SO I HAVE AN NENT THAT ONE. — AN INTEREST IN THAT ONE. BUT I HAVE TO GO TO AN APPOINTMENT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NEGOTIATION I DON’T. >> THANK YOU. — NO, I DON’T. >> THANK YOU. >> LET’S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. AND I’M MISTAKENLY SAID THAT YOU CHARGE $79. CASE 3039. WHAT DO YOU CHARGE FOR THIS PROPERTY? >> WELL — >> WHEN I WERE RENTING IT — WHEN YOU WERE RENTING IT, WHAT DID YOU CHARGE? >> ABOUT A HUNDRED. TYPICALLY AROUND A HUNDRED. IT’S A SEASONABLE THING. >> THAT’S ALL I WANTED TO KNOWLEDGE. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD FOR REBUTTAL AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENED? >> MY REBUTTAL IS OBVIOUSLY YOU POINTED IT OUT. HE DOESN’T LIVE IN MY AREA. GRANTED TO DO THIS, I DON’T WANT TO HAVE PARTIES.

I DON’T WANT TO DO — AND I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST AIRBNB WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS. SOME PEOPLE ABUSE IT. SOME PEOPLE HAVE BIG PARTIES WITH LOTS OF TEENAGERS AND UNDERAGE DRINKIG AND A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT GO ON. FOR THE MOST PART, MOST OF US DON’T WANT THAT BECAUSE WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY’RE GOING TO DO TO OUR PROPERTY? WE DON’T WANT THAT IN OUR PROPERTIES. >> YOU LIVE IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THE NEXT ONE WE’RE ABOUT TO HEAR, THAT’S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO YOU, RIGHT? >> WELL, NOT RIGHT NEXT DOOR, BUT WITHIN HOLLERING DISTANCE. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE — JUST A LITTLE SMALL DISTANCE AWAY. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> YES. I WANT TO ASK HIM THE SAME I ASKED JUST BEFORE. IS THERE ANY NOTICE ON THE AIRBNB WEBSITE THAT SAYS THAT YOU’RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT TO OPERATE IN THE CITY OF NASHVILLE? >> WELL, ODDLY ENOUGH, I WAS VERY IGNORANT UNTIL THIS — UNTIL I WENT DOWN THERE AND THIS ALL STARTED HAPPENING.

IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS I’VE BEEN A QUICK STUDY. SO I’VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THINGS. IT WAS PUT UP IN JANUARY. >> YOU MEAN THE NOTICE. >> THERE IS A NOTICE NOW. >> SO BEFORE YOU POSTED KIND OF FLASHES AND SAYS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK WITH YOUR CITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE REGULATIONS. BUT WHEN YOU DID THIS — >> IT DOESN’T REALLY FLASH BUT THERE IS A NOTICE NOW. BUT THERE WASN’T — >> YOU DID IT ORIGINALLY THERE WASN’T. >> RIGHT, BUT IT’S BEEN PUT UP IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS, I THINK. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO. >> WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO AS WE’VE POINTED OUT TO THE OPPOSITION, WE ARE GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE COUNCIL WHEN IT FIRST — THIS AIRBNB ORDINANCE DID NOT GIVE US ANY AUTHORITY. WE HAD TO UPHOLD EITHER A YEAR’S SUSPENSION OR NO SUSPENSION AT ALL. NOW WE HAVE DISCRETION. THIS IS A VERY COMMON CASE OF SOMEBODY THAT DIDN’T KNOW. AND LIKE A LOT OF OTHER CASES THAT THIS BOARD HAS HEARD WHEN THEY FOUND OUT, THEY CAME DOWN HERE WITH AN APPLICATION IN HAND AND WAS TOLD BECAUSE THEY PREVIOUSLY RENTED, THEY WERE NOT ELIGIBLE AND THEY APPLIED TO THIS BOARD.

THIS PERSON ALSO, AND ONE OF THE BIG MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU KNOW — THIS BOARD LOOKS AT IS HE CANCELED ANY FUTURE RENTALS ONCE HE FOUND OUT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THIS AIRBNB LAW. SO — >> YEAH. ONE OF THE BIG ADVANTAGES TO THIS CITY FOR HAVING ANY LESSER PENALTY IS THAT IN CASES WHERE YOU HAVE — AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, OWNER OKAY MILD SHORT TERM RENTAL WHERE THE — OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IT HASN’T BEEN TOO MUCH. BUT IF THERE IS A SHORTER PENALTY AND THEY DO RENT THEIR OWNER OCCUPIED HOME, THEN THEY GET INTO THE TAX STRUCTURE AND THEY START FOLLOWING THE LAW AND PAYING TAXES ON THE RENTALS AND I THINK THAT’S A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN THE FOLKS THAT ARE JUST WAITING TO GET CAUGHT. I THINK THAT THAT’S PART OF THE REASON THAT THEY CHANGED THIS PENALTY, WAS SO THAT — THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY — WE WOULD HAVE AN INCENTIVE FOR FOLKS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION’S POINT ABOUT HAVING A DISINCENTIVE OR — YOU KNOW, YOU DON’T WANT TO — YOU WANT TO PUNISHMENT FOLKS THAT AREN’T DOING THE RIGHT THING.

BUT THIS WAS THE INCENTIVE FOR FOLKS DO TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND I THINK THAT’S IN THE TEXTBOOK CASE, ESPECIALLY THIS IS THE HOME WHERE HE LIVES. >> HAS ANY, WHEN HE RECEIVED NOTICE, WHETHER HE’D GOTTEN ANY COMPLAINTS ON EITHER OF THESE PROPERTIES? I DIDN’T THINK TO ASK THAT, SO I DON’T KNOW IF THERE WERE COMPLAINTS BY ANY NEIGHBORS FOR NOISE OR ANYTHING. THE ONE THAT’S NOT OWNER OCCUPIED. >> WE’LL ASK HIM ON THE NEXT CASE. >> WE’RE GOING TO GO SEPARATELY? >> YES. >> OKAY. NEVER MIND. >> IS THERE A MOTION? >> WELL, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE — OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BASED UPON OUR FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT — THAT THE FACTS SET OUT IN ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE APPROPRIATE PROVISION OF THE CODE APPLY TO THIS APPLICANT.

>> SO THEREFORE, WHAT ARE WE — SUGGESTING? >> WELL — >> I THINK WHAT WE’VE DONE BEFORE IS FIND THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT. >> CORRECT, BUT — >> BUT THE PENALTY OTHERWISE WE SAID THAT THEY WERE WRONG AND THE FACT — >> OKAY. >> HE’S ADMITTED HE DID IT. THE FACTS SAY HE DID IT. SO THE ADMINISTRATOR WASN’T WRONG OR EGREGIOUS, BUT THE PENALTY — >> THEN WE’RE USING OUR DISCRETION. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT, THEN? >> THAT’S FINE. >> WELL, I’LL MOVE THAT WE FINE THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT AND DETERMINING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF PRIOR RENTAL.

AND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WARRANT THAT THE APPLICANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A PERMIT BECAUSE OF THE TIME LAPSE BETWEEN THE DATE HE GOT THE LETTER AND HIS NOT RENTING IT FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT HE BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PERMIT AT THE END OF THIS HEARING. >> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I’LL SECOND. IT’S MUCH BETTER. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED? PASSES. STAY WHERE YOU ARE, JOHN MICHAEL.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 2017-038. THE APPELLANT AND OWNER OF THE BROUGHT BRENT MILLER, FILING AN ITEM A APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL CASE AND MR. EWING WITH PERMISSION, I’LL% SKIP THE FORMALITIES, OTHER THAN TO SAY OPERATING WITHOUT A MER MIT ON 2843 LOGAN STREET. THE ZONING MAP SOS THE AREA HERE. SPECIFIC SITE MAP THERE. AND THEN THE FACE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. MILLER WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS CASE TO THE BOARD. IS THERE ANYONE HERE STILL IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE ON LOGAN STREET? SEEING NONE, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. MR. MILLER.

>> SO WHAT HAPPENED? >> DITTO, THE EXACT SAME THING. >> SO YOU GOT A LETTER AND — >> NO, THE LETTER — AS SOON AS I GOT THE LETTER, I WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT. BUT I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR A COUPLE WEEKS FOR CHRISTMASFL. I GOT IT A LITTLE LATE. >> THIS IS NOT AN OWNER OCCUPIED. DID YOU HAVE ANY FUTURE BOOKINGS OR RENTALS FOR THIS PROPERTY? >> NO, ACTUALLY, I DIDN’T IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I JUST DIDN’T. I DIDN’T HAVE IT ON LONG ENOUGH TO GET ANYTHING. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >> THE SAME I WANT — JUST WERE YOU GIVEN ANY CITATION FOR — OBVIOUSLY NOT IF YOU HAD IT ON SO SHORT. DID YOU EVEN RENT IT AT ALL, THE ONE ON LOGAN STREET? >> VERY FIRST WEEKEND I DID RENT IT, YES. >> AND YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS? >> NO, MA’AM, BECAUSE — I MEAN, IT’S JUST A LITTLE 700 — IT’S A LITTLE SMALL PLACE. 700 SQUARE FEET AND IT — NO. NO COMPLAINTS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SAME SCENARIO, DIFFERENT PLACE. >> DID YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR SAME MOTION? >> YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE — I HAVE A FEELING AT SOME POINT IN TIME THERE WILL BE NONOWNER OCCUPIED SHORT SHORT-TERM RENTAL CASES THAT — THAT HAVE PROBLEMS.

AND I I WAS GLAD THESE WERE SEPARATED BECAUSE I THOUGHT MAYBE THIS IS ONE THAT HAS PROBLEMS. BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A NONOWNER OCCUPIED, IT’S MORE OF A BUSINESS THAN RENTING YOUR HOME OUT FOR THE WEEKEND AND THIS BOARD HAS SAID, BUT WE HAVEN’T HAD ANY REAL TEST CASES, THAT THERE’S A DIFFERENCE. BUT I DO THINK THAT FROM WHAT WE’VE HEARD IN THIS CASE, AND MOST LIKELY BECAUSE THERE ARE NEIGHBORS OR OTHERS THAT WERE KEEPING AN EYE ON WHO HAS PERMITS WHO DOESN’T, THIS APPLICANT WAS NOTIFIED VERY QUICKLY THAT THEY HAD ADVERTISED AND THEY NEEDED A PERMIT. BUT THE BEHAVIOR WAS I THINK RESPONSIBLE. THERE HASN’T BEEN ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT INTENT. CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT IS BELIEVABLE IN TERMS OF THE TESTIMONY TO SAY, THERE WAS NO INTENT. SO I — SINCE I WAS PRODUCTED BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TOP PRODDED BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE A MOTION, SO I’LL MOVE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME MOTION.

THAT THE — THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT IN DENYING THE PERMIT DUE TO PRIOR OPERATION. AND THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PERMIT AT THE END OF THIS HEARING BASED ON THE LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN THE LETTER HE RECEIVED AND TODAY AND HIS STRICT ADHERENCE OF NOT RENTING THE PROPERTY ONCE NOTIFIED UNTIL HE HAD HIS HEARING. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. WE HOPE NOT TO SEE YOU AGAIN. >> OSTLESZS CLOSET AT 4 FMS — OFFICES CLOSE AT P.M. SHARP. >> OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> JOHN MICHAEL? >> CASE 39 AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF AN STR PERMIT BASED UPON PRIOR OPERATION WITHOUT THE PERMIT. MR. JANSEN, COME FORWARD, PLEASE. IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 39? THERE IS. THEREFORE, YOU’LL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SAVE BACK SOME OF THAT FOR REBUTTAL. WE’LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTT.

PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS. >> PHILIP JANSEN. I LIVE AT 3481 MCGAVOCK. IN NASH. VERY SIM — IN NASHVILLE. VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE TO THE LAST GENTLEMAN. MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT THIS PLACE. UNDER TWO OF THREE FHA LOAN THE LAST YEAR, CLOSED ON DECEMBER 10th. AND WE PROCEEDED TO REHAB THE PLACE AND IT LOOKS NICE ON THE INSIDE. WE’VE ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF LOOKING FOR STUFF ON THE SIDE IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY. WE’RE BOTH PRETTY YOUNG AND SO WE’VE SOLD SOME STUFF ON AMAZON AND THE YEAR BEFORE THAT DID A SMALL PHONE CASE BUSINESS. AND SOMEONE TOLD US ABOUT AIRBNB AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME MONEY ON OUR HOUSE IF WE RENTED IT OUT. AND WE DIDN’T MIND STAYING SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO I LISTED IT ON AIRBNB. I PUT UP ONE PICTURE. I TOOK ON MY iPHONE. AND PUT UP A QUICK DESCRIPTION.

AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED RECEIVING BOOKINGS. I DON’T KNOW IF WE PRICED IT TOO LOW OR NOT. I HAD RENTED IT OUT QUITE A FEW TIMES. MY WIFE AND I STAYED DOWN IN FRANKLIN WITH HER PARENTS ON THOSE OCCASIONS. AND ONE TIME WE ACTUALLY WENT AND STAYED WITH OUR FRIENDS IN KENTUCKY FOR A WEEKEND AND WE WERE LOOK AT IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE SOME STAYCATION WHENEVER WE DID RENT IT OUT AND WE WERE MAKE SOMETHING PRETTY GOOD MONEY OFF OF IT. SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT AND THEN I GOT A LETTER IN THE MAIL SAYING IT TO HAVE A PERMIT. AND I — I DIDN’T REALIZE THAT AT THAT POINT. I PAUSED THE LISTING.

AND I WENT AND SOUGHT OUT A PERMIT AND DIDN’T — AND THEN IT AND I THINK I WENT A LITTLE BIT LAKE, LIKE AFTER THE — LATE, LIKE AFTER THE INITIAL LETTER CAME. IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO MAKE IT THERE. I’M IN TRANSITION IN MY CAREER. >> WHAT’S A WHILE? WITH WE TALKING DAYS — ARE WE TALKING DAYS, WEEKS? >> I GOT THE LETTER I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER, LATE DECEMBER. AND I WENT TO TRY AND GET THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT IN JANUARY.

>> BETWEEN THERE, YOU HAD CANCELED ALL YOUR LISTINGS? >> I DIDN’T CANCEL THEM BECAUSE I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I WAS WORRIED. I ACTUALLY READ UP ON WHO HAPPENS WHENEVER — WHAT HAPPENS WHATEVER YOU CANCEL YOUR BOOKINGS. YOUR REPUTATION I GUESS GOES AWAY. AND WE WOULD LOOKING AT SOME MAKE SOMETHING PRETTY GOOD MONEY FOR — FOR THIS IN THE FUTURE. AND WE DIDN’T WANT PEOPLE TO SEE US CANCELING OUR — OUR BOOKINGS AND GIVE PEOPLE LESS CONFIDENCE IN BOOKING OUT OUR PLACE. AND SO HONESTLY, LIKE I MEAN, I SOUGHT OUT A PERMIT BUT I DID FULFILL THE BOOKINGS — >> HOW MANY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SINCE YOU RECEIVED THE LETTER AND THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE? >> I DON’T HAVE THAT EXACT NUMBER.

>> IS IT FIVE, 10, 20? >> I WOULD SAY LESS THAN — THAS THAN 10. I MEAN, I’M NOT SURE — WE DO IT WEEKENDS. SOMETIMES WE STEP OUT DURING THE WEEK IF IT’S WORTH IT. BUT WE’VE ACTUALLY BEEN — YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT TIRESOME OF IT. BUT STILL, I MEAN — >> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE REPRESENTED? >> WE HAD — RENTED? >> WE HAD ONE RECENTLY.

>> HOW RECENT? WEEKS, DAYS? >> WE HAD ONE THIS PAST WEEKEND. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPELLANT’S COMMENTARY, THE STAFF PACKET INCLUDES PRINTOUTS OF REVIEWS OF THE RENTAM. >> THERE WERE 12. >> 5 OF WHICH IN JANUARY AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRINTED OUT ON THE DATE OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS JANUARY 18th IN 2017 AS WELL AS A HANDFUL IN NOVEMBER. >> YEAH. SO THERE’S A BUNCH — >> YOU HAD 12 REVIEWS. THEY WERE ALL FIVE STARS. >> YEAH, AND THAT’S WHY — WHENEVER YOU CANCEL SOMETHING, APPARENTLY LIKE IT LIKE THRUSTS A REVIEW THAT YOU HAVE CANCELED A BOOKING ON THE FOREFRONT OF YOUR PAGE.

SO I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I WAS WORRIED. I DIDN’T WANT ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT WOULD CAUSE PEOPLE TO NOT WANT TO BOOK THE PLACE. > BUT YOU DID RENT THEM 12 TIMES AFTER YOU GOT THIS LETTER. >> NO. >> HOW MANY TIMES AFTER YOU? >> A LOT OF THOSE WERE BEFORE THE LETTER. WOULD SAY. >> BEFORE THE LETTER. AND THEN WHENEVER I GOT THE LETTER, YEAH. I MEAN — >> OKAY. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >> I’M SORRY IF YOU ALREADY ANSWERED THIS. ARE THERE ANY MORE BOOKINGS YOU HAVE ON THE BOOKS? >> THERE ARE SOME IN THE FUTURE THAT I HAVE IN — THREE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD. >> THIS IS A FIRST FOR THE BZA. YOU STILL HAVE BOOKINGS THAT YOU ARE OUT THERE.

AND YOU DON’T HAVE A LICENSE. >> IF I DON’T GET APPROVED TODAY, I NINE, I’M NOT GOING TO — I MEAN, I’M NOT GOING TO BOOK THEM OUT. WHENEVER I GOT THE LETTER I SOUGHT OUT AND PERMIT BECAUSE I DIDN’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR ANYTHING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IF I DON’T GI APPROVED, I WILL CANCEL. >> DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL IS RENTING A PLACE OUT WITHOUT A PERMIT. >> WERE THESE BOOKED AFTER THE LETTER OR WERE THESE BOOKED BEFORE THE LETTER ALSO? >> BOOKED BEFORE THE LETTER. >> OKAY. >> SO YOU HAD BOOKINGS AND THERE’S STILL BOOKINGS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT YOU HAVEN’T CANCELED BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T GET NEW ACTIVE BOOKINGS AFTER YOU GOT YOUR LETTER? >> YEAH. I MEAN, PEOPLE BOOKED OUR PLACE OUT EARLY AND OFTEN. I MEAN, ‘HAD IT LISTED FOR — I ONLY HAD IT LISTED FOR $79 A NIGHT.

AND I WAS TRYING TO BE COMPETITIVE. SO PEOPLE WERE WERE, BOOBING IT EVEN INTO AUGUST AND — BOOKING IT EVEN INTO COAST AUGUST OF THS COMING YEAR. I DIDN’T WANT TO START CANCELING A BUNCH OF STUFF WHEN I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY. >> HOW SOON IS YOUR NEXT BOOKING? >> I DON’T HAVE THAT IN FROM OF MY. MY WIFE AND I DO IT ON OUR PHONES AND WE JUST KIND OF GET ALERTS WHENEVER WE HAVE SOMETHING COMING UP. >> SO THERE’S A LOT THAT GOES INTO OBTAINING A PERMIT. INCLUDING HAVING I THINK A FIRE MARSHAL REVIEW.

IS THAT RIGHT, JOHN MICHAEL? >> THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS. >> OKAY. HAVE YOU DONE THAT? >> I HAVEN’T. BUT WHENEVER I WENT TO — OR SO WHENEVER I FOUND OUT THAT I NEEDED TO GET A PERMIT, I SOUGHT OUT ON THE METRO NASHVILLE úWEBSD NEED IN ORDER TO GET IT. AND I CAME THERE WITH MY — YOU KNOW, MY SCHEMATIC AND INSTALLING ALL MY SMOKE ALARMS. I DIDN’T REALIZED THAT I WAS GOING TO GET DENIED BECAUSE I’D BEEN OPERATING WITHOUT A PER MILT. I DIDN’T — PERMIT. I DIDN’T KNOW HOW STRINGENT THESE GUIDELINES WERE AND OBVIOUSLY I’VE BEEN EDUCATING MYSELF A LOT RECENTLY JUST LIKE THE LAST GENTLEMEN. BUT NO, I AM — I’M READY FOR THAT. I WOULD — I WOULD GO TOMORROW MORNING AND MAKE SURE THAT GOT SCHEDULED IF IT WAS APPROVED TODAY. >> SO WHEN IS YOUR NEXT BOOKING? >> I CAN CHECK ON MY PHONE IF YOU’D LIKE.

>> WHEN THE OPPOSITION COMES UP HERE, PLEASE CHECK ON YOUR PHONE AND TELL US. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS IN FEBRUARY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION AND PLEASE LET US KNOW WHEN THE NEXT BOOKINGS ARE. OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHY YOU’RE OPPOSED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. >> MY NAME ISTRUD EASTWOOD. I’M THE PRESIDENT OF THE 7 OAKS HOA, HAD WHICH THE OWNER — WHICH THE OWNER IS IN, AND PAYS HIS DUES TO. THERE ARE 47 PEOPLE IN OUR HOA WHO ARE PAYING EVERY MONTH TO KEEP THE HOA CLEAN, SAFE. WE DO THE LAWN CARE, GO AROUND ONCE A MONTH AND WE CHECK AND SEE WHO’S PUTTING THINGS UP THAT SHOULDN’T BE THERE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IT’S ALSO WRITTEN IN OUR LAWS THAT ONLY — NO UNIT OR LOT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY. SO WHAT HE’S BEEN DOING SO FAR IS NOT WITH OUR — WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE HOA.

SO WE’RE ASKING FOR HIM NOT TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH HIS REQUEST. >> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO — ANY QUESTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> THERE IS A $50 A DAY FEE FOR ANYTHING THAT’S NOT ACCEPTED IN OUR HOA, SO. >> THAT’S UP TO YOU TO ENFORCE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. JUST MAKE IT — THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR HOAs BECAUSE WE NOW WILL HAVE TO GET A LAWYER AND TAKE THEM TO COURT. >> BUT IF YOU HAVE — IF A GOOD LAWYER HAS DRAFTED YOUR HOA FEES, IF YOU’RE SUCCESSFUL, YOU GET THAT FROM THE PARTY THAT YOU HAVE SUED. >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> SO — >> EVERYONE WE TOOK TO COURT, WE ALWAYS HAVE — >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> GOT THAT DONE. >> DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMPLAINTS FROM ANYONE WHO WAS RENTING THERE? HE’S OBVIOUSLY ARE SEVERAL. HAVE YOU ALL HAD ANY COMPLAINTS. IN THE PROBLEM WITH OUR HOAs, WE HAVE LONG-TERM RENTAL THERE ONE YEAR OR MORE. AND SO THERE’S PROBABLY A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING AROUND THERE THAT ARE NOT THE ACTUAL OWNERS, SO THEY’RE PROBABLY NOT CALLING IN TO THE HOA BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY DON’T EVEN KNOW THERE IS AN HOA.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> SO WHAT DID YOU FIND OUT? WHERE THE NEXT RENTALS COMING UP AND HOW MANY ARE THERE? >> SURE. I REMEMBER THIS ONE. IT WAS ACTUALLY A LADY THAT WANTED TO TAKE HER AND HER HUSBAND AND IT’S COMING UP. WE HAVE ONE COMING UP ON THE 24th OF THIS MONTH. AND THEN THERE’S ONE ON THE WEEKEND IN MARCH AND — >> HOW MANY TOTAL? >> I DIDN’T COUNT THEM.

I CAN — >> IS IT OVER 10? >> GOING INTO MARCH AND JUNE — THERE’S ONE OR TWO EVERY MONTH. AND YES, SO IT WOULD BE OVER 10. >> OVER 20? >> I WOULD SAY NO. >> OKAY. >> BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, IF I’M NOT IN COMPLIANCE, I’M NOT GOING TO BE CONCERNED WITH CANCELING THAT. WITH THE HOA, CONCERN, I UNDERSTAND — I ACTUALLY WAS — >> LET ME SAY THAT’S NOT OUR DEAL. >> IT IS CERTAINLY A RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE THERE’S ONLY ONE PERSON ON THE HOA BOARD RIGHT NOW. THERE’S ONLY ONE PERSON. SO I BELIEVE THAT HE’S HERE TODAY. AND THERE’S NO ACTUAL BOARD. >> AND WE DON’T DEAL WITH THAT. >> I’M SORRY. >> THAT’S A PRIVATE CONTRACT BETWEEN YOU AND THE OTHER FOLKS IN THAT AREA. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITY BUSINESS. >> DO YOU HAVE IGELSE TO ADD? >> I DON’T — ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> I DON’T. I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING I CAN TO BE COMPLIANT FROM THE MOMENT I RECEIVED THE LETTER LETTER AND E TODAY REQUESTING AN APPROVAL. >> EXCUSE ME, NOT QUITE. >> I’VE DONE LOTS, YES, SIR. BUT MAYBE NOT EVERYTHING BECAUSE I COULD HAVE CANCELED EVERY ONE OF THEM BUT I WAS AFRAID OF THE REPERCUSSION THAT IS WOULD HAPPEN IF I DID — REPERCUSSIONS THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I DID CANCEL ACTIVE BOOGINGS AND YEAH.

— BOOKINGS, YEAH. MY APOLOGIES VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. WE’RE GOING CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THIS IS WHY WE HAVE DISCUSSION. WE HEAR FROM THE COUNCIL PEOPLE INCLUDING THE LAST CASE, THE COUNCILOR PERSONAL DIDN’T WANT US TO APPROVE — COUNCILPERSON DIDN’T WANT US TO APPROVE IT. I THINK A YEAR IS DRACONIAN AND AND I’M GLAD THE COUNCIL FIXED THAT, WE HAVE HAD MANY CASES WHERE PEOPLE WHO WERE EVEN CHARGES LESS THAT DIDN’T KNOW — CHARGING LESS THAT DIDN’T KNOW CANCELED.

I REMEMBER ONE WOMAN SHE CANCELED OUT SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THESE. THESE WERE — WAS CHARGING $30 FOR A ROOM AND HAD TO PAY $50. SHE WASN’T CONCERNED ABOUT HER REVIEW. SHE WANTED TO BE COMPLIEMENT. SO FOR THIS — COMPLIANT. SO FOR THIS CASE I WANT US TO TALK ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE THE RULING BASED ON THE FACTS. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST CASE BECAUSE WE’VE HAD MANY, MANY BOOKINGS IN THE FUTURE THAT WERE NOT CANCELED. SO BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? >> YOU KNOW, I THINK I WOULD ENTERTAIN SIX MONTHS. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, TOO. >> WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT HE RENTED IT FIVE TIMES, THAT IT’S BEEN RENTED FIVE TIMES SINCE HE GOT THE LETTER? AND IF WE SUSPEND HIM BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES IT WAS RENTED, — AND I’M NOT TERRIBLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE CANCELLATIONS.

OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COME BEFORE US AND CANCELED AND WERE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THEIR REPUTATION ONLINE. BUT MY THOUGHT WOULD BE IF WE SUSPEND HIM — I REALLY EVEN THINK FIVE MONTHS MAY BE A LONG TIME, BUT IF WE SUSPEND HIM FOR FIVE MONTHS, HE MAY STILL GET SOME OF HIS FUTURE BOOKINGS IF HE’S BOOKED OUT TO AUGUST, BUT YET WE’RE IMFOCUSING A PUNISHMENT — IMPOSING A PUNISHMENT THAT WILL STING.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD. >> I AGREE THAT THERE’S — THIS IS NOT THE FIRST CASE THAT WE HEARD. IT’S NOT THE STANDARD CASE — THE CREDIT IS YOU PAUSED AND YOU DIDN’T TAKE NEW — BUT YOU STILL OPERATED ILLLY. I THINK — ILLEGALLY. I THINK IT’S MORE THAN GET YOUR PERMIT TOMORROW. I’M IN THE THREE TO SIX IS FINE, FOUR OR FIVE IS FINE. WHATEVER THE MAJORITY THINK ON THAT ONE. >> SO WHEN WOULD YOU START THE PENALTY? >> WELL, MY THINKING IS, I GUESS I’M JUST LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD AS A BOARD.

WE DON’T REALLY HAVE GUIDELINES. AND I THINK DISCRETION IS GREAT AND THAT’S WHAT WE’VE WANTED. BUT I DON’T WANT US TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE GET A — YOU KNOW, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GRADING THESE CASES. SO IN MY MIND, THIS — WHAT I’M HEARING WOULD BE A THREE-MONTH SUSPENSION STARTING JANUARY 1. AND JUST SORT OF — THAT’S KIND OF THE LEVEL OF COMPLAINT I HAVE. >> SO YOU SAID THREE MONTHS. MR. TAYLOR SAID THREE TO SIX MONTHS. THESE FOLKS SAID SIX. SO WHAT ARE — WHAT’S OUR COMFORT LEVEL? >> I LIKE THE IDEA, FOR THE — TYING IT TO THE — WE DON’T HAVE GUIDANCE — >> BUT EVERY CASE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT — >> BUT THERE IS — I THINK APPEALS COURTS LIKE REASON AND DON’T LIKE THINGS TO APPEAR ARBITRARY. AND I THINK FIVE MONTHS FOR — FIVE CASES OR FIVE RENTALS THAT HE ACCEPTED, AND HAS BEEN PAID FOR, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY THE ONES THAT ARE BOOKED IN THE FUTURE THAT HE’LL HAVE TO CANCEL WILL BE PUNISHMENT IN AND OF ITSELF I THINK.

SO IF WE GAVE HIM FIVE MONTHS — I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT. >> STARTING WHEN? >> RIGHT NOW. >> STARTING TODAY. >> TODAY. >> MOTION. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I DO THINK, I DO LIKE THE INCENTIVE FOR HONESTY. I DO LIKE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME HERE AND — YOU KNOW, AND INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES. YOU KNOW, AND THE SENSE THAT THEY — FULL DISCLOSURE. AND YOU KNOW, SO I — YOU KNOW, I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T WANT TO — CREATE — >> WE’RE STILL MORE FLEXIBLE THAN IF YOU GO DOWN TO CODES AND SAY I’VE BEEN RENTING PRIOR, THEY’RE LIKE, SEE YOU IN A YEAR.

>> I’M JUST ALSO RELUCTANT TO TIE IT — TIE A PENALTY TO — >> I DON’T WANT TO TIE IT — >> PERSONAL NEN. >> THE ONLY REASON I WANTED TO TIE IT — AND I WILL SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT IT — THIS IS CASE-SPECIFIC. AND I JUST THINK THAT IT — I THINK ANYBODY LOOKING AT THIS AFTER THE FACT, LIKE AN APPEALS COURT, COULD FOSSBLY SEE — POSSIBLY SEE SIX MONTHS IS MORE ARBITRARY THAN FIVE MONTHS WHEN WE’VE DISCUSSED THE FIVE INCIDENTS THAT HE HAS RENTED.

THAT’S MY THINKING. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE FIVE MONTHS FOR ME TO VOTE OUT, BUT I THINK IT’S A — I THINK IT’S A NONCAPRICIOUS PLACE TO START. >> OKAY. >> BUT I’M OPEN TO THE BOARD’S. >> CAN I TRY ONE MORE TIME. >> YES. >> WE HAVE THESE SIX REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD BASE OUR DECISION ON. SO I WOULD JUST — WRITE, WE’RE LOOKING AT AN APPEALS COURT DOWN THE ROAD. WE’VE HEARD FROM THE OPERATOR WHO WAS BRAND NEW. HE JUST GOT HIS LETTER AND STARTED RENTING IT. WE DON’T HAVE TESTIMONY OF NEIGHBORS OR OTHER SPECIFIC OPPOSITION, ALTHOUGH WE DID HEAR THAT THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH HIS HOA, WHICH I THINK WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVEN IF THAT IT THAT’S A SEPARATE CONTRACT.

— IF THAT’S A SEPARATE CONTRACT. WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS INFORMED OF THE REQUIREMENT AND DISREGARDED IT IN THE SENSE HE COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE LAW. HE COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CANCELED BECAUSE SPECIFICALLY WE’RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT WHETHER HE ABSTAINED THE — WHETHER HE GOT THE PERMIT BEFORE HE RENTED IT AGAIN. >> YEAH. WELL, HE ADMITTED BASICALLY THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO CANCEL BECAUSE HE WANTED TO KEEP HIS GOOD ONLINE RATING. >> EXACTLY, WHICH IS A PROBLEM TO ME. I THINK THAT IS PUNISHABLE. SO I AGREE. BUT I’M JUST — BECAUSE WE’RE DEALING WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS QUALIFIED OR NOTIFIED IN DECEMBER, IN MY MIND, MAYBE THIS IS JUST BECAUSE I’M A LAWYER AND MOVED SO SLOWLY, I THINK WE’RE HERE 60 DAYS WITHIN HIS LETTER. I THINK THAT’S ABOUT AS QUICK AS YOU CAN MOVE. SO I FEEL LIKE — >> BUT HE’S BEEN — YOU TALK ABOUT WHEN DOES IT START. I’M MORE INCLINED, WHATEVER WE DO, TO DO IT TODAY BECAUSE HE’S JUST BEEN ACTING LIKE EVERYTHING IS THE SAME. I’M NOT CANCELING ANYTHING. I’M JUST GOING ABOUT MY BUSINESS, WHEREAS’ MOST OF THE OTHER CASES WE’VE HEARD WHEN THEY GOT THE LETTER, THEY IMMEDIATELY STOPPED AND THERE WAS LIKE A LAG OF TWO MONTHS.

WHEN THEY CAME HERE WE JUST SAID, OKAY, YOU GET YOUR PERMIT BACK. >> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. AND I WOULD BE FINE STARTING IT TODAY. THE THING AND WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU IS I THINK IF WE TIED IT IN TO THE — WHAT I’M TRYING TO DO IS CATEGORIZE AS A BOARD WHAT WE THINK IS PROBLEMATIC AND THEN WE HAVE A THREE-MONTH FOR THIS, A SIX-MONTH FOR THIS, NINE MONTHS AND DO IT THAT WAY.

AND TO ME — HIGH SCHOOL IT IS EGREGIOUS, IT’S — WHILE IT’S ON EGREGIOUS, IT’S ON THE LOWER END BECAUSE HE’S HERE RIGHT AFTER BEING ALLOWED. THAT’S MY THINKING. AND MAYBE YOU’RE RIGHT. IT’S BETTER TO TIE IT TO THE NUMBER OF OFFENSES. BUT I THINK THAT MAY BE A MORE OF A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD. GIVEN OUR — >> IT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN 10 TIMES. 15 TIMES. >> THAT’S VALID. AND YOU GIES ARE GOING TO TALK — YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO TALK ME DOWN TO NOTHING EVENTUALLY. BUT YOU ADDRESSED THE MAIN POINT. I JUST DON’T — YOU’RE RIGHT. WE DON’T WANT IT TO BE ARBITRARY. AND LET’S DEFINE — >> WHAT WE’VE SAID IS GIVEN THAT HE CONTINUED TO RENT, EVEN AFTER GIVING THE LETTER, THAT’S NOT GOOD FOR THIS BOARD. WE DON’T LIKE THAT. WE LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT WHEN THEY FOUND OUT, THEY CAME DOWN HERE AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, I CANCELED ALL FUTURE BOOKINGS UNTIL I GET THIS PERMIT. AND THAT’S FAIR TO EVERYBODY THAT PLAYS BY THE SYSTEM.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT PLAY BY THE SYSTEM AND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE RENTING OUT THEIR HOUSE THAT DON’T HAVE PERMITS THAT DECIDE, I’M NOT GOING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. >> YEAH. I’M THINKING A LITTLE BIT NOW THAT IF YOU — IF — LET’S SAY YOU WERE — THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO THAT WE HAVE WHERE YOU FIND OUT IMMEDIATELY, YOU STOP. THERE’S ABOUT AN EIGHT-SIX OOFS TO 8-WEEK TIME FRAME WHERE WE SAY YOU’VE BEEN PENALIZED FOR ALMOST TWO MONTHS.

MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS. SO YOU KNOW, THIS SEEMS TO BE — KIND OF DOUBLE THAT. YOU KNOW. I MEAN, YOU’RE TWO MONTHS — >> ONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE SO LIGHT ON THOSE PEOPLE IS BECAUSE THEY STOPPED. AND SO THIS PERSON DIDN’T STOP. >> THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. >> DOUBLE MIGHT BE THE — >> AND I THINK — >> I AGREE. >> AND I — SO LIKE I SAID, THAT’S WHY I SAID, YOU KNOW, I’M KIND OF LEANING TOWARD — AND I THINK TODAY IS THE DAY. THERE’S NO — THERE’S NO TIME SERVED BECAUSE IT’S BEEN RENTED UP UNTIL TODAY.

SO I THINK FOR THE OTHERS, THEY HAVE BEEN PENALIZED. THEY’VE BEEN PENALIZED SEVERAL MONTHS. BUT IT WAS WHEN THEY STARTED THEIR SELF IMPOSED NOT RENTING AND THIS WAS NEVER SELF-IMPOSED. I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOUR MONTHS FROM TODAY IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. TWO MONTHS FOR — HAD STOPPED BUT THEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT NO, THIS IS ANOTHER LEVEL ABOVE THAT. >> SO HOW ABOUT I MAKE A MOTION AND YOU GUYS CAN TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.

I MOVE THAT WE FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT IN HIS RULING, AND GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT — THAT THE PERMIT BE DENIED FOR — >> NOT ELIGIBLE. >> NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A FER PERMIT FOR FOUR MONTHS FROM TODAY’S DATE. >> I’LL SECOND THAT. >> MOTIONS HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO THE LEGAL RAMIFICATION IS, FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS, YOU CANNOT RENT ANY OF YOUR HOUSE FOR AIRBNB OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

AND IF YOU HAVE BOOKINGS, WHICH YOU SAID YOU HAD, THOSE SHOULD BE CANCELED. BECAUSE IF THEY’RE NOT CANCELED, AND YOU TRY TO GO GET A PERMIT FOUR MONTHS FROM NOW, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU. AND YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK HERE AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW OUR RULING TO CANCEL FOUR MONTHS OF PERMITS. AND I’M SURE WE WON’T BE AS HAPPY EITHER. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AM I ABLE TO ADDRESS BY ASKING HOW CAN I APPEAL THAT DECISION? >> TO THE CHANCERY COURT AND JOHN MICHAEL CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT AFTER THE MEETING. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> JOHN MICHAEL? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT CASE IS 2017-41. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4117 BRUSH HILL ROAD, ANOTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITTING CASE. CHALLENGING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DENY OF THE PERMIT — DENIAL OF THE PERMIT. AERIAL MAP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. TAX ASSESSOR’S PHOTO OF THE FACE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. APPELLANT MR. IRVIN IS ALSO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IS MR. IRVIN PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION PRESENT REGARDING CASE NR 1? PLEASE — CASE NUMBER 41? PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE, MR. IRWIN WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR ADDRESS. >> BRIAN IRIN, 4117 BRUSH HILL ROAD. >> WHY ARE YOU HERE SNAR WHAT HAPPENED? >> I — HERE? WHAT HAPPENED? >> I BEGAN RENTING OUT IT IN 2014, WELL BEFORE THERE WERE ANY PERMITS REQUIRED. IN NOVEMBER OF BETWEEN 2014 I WAS APPROACHED BY A PROPERTY MANAGER WHO EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF MY PROPERTY. IN EXCHANGE FOR 14% FEE. THEY’D TAKE CARE OF ALL THE BOOKINGS BUT WHAT REALLY SOLD ME BASS THAT THEY TOLD ME PERMITS WERE GOING TO BE COMING UP. AND THAT THEY HAD AN INSIDE TRACK AND THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE PERMITS FOR ME. AND I THOUGHT THAT UNDER SOD LIKE A GOOD DEAL. SO I AGREED TO THAT. AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER THAT, THEY CAME TO ME AND THEY SAID HERE’S YOUR PERMIT NUMBER. 500545. THEY GAVE EMPLOYEE THE FORMS FOR THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX THAT I WAS TO FILL OUT EVERY MONTH. THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED $1 MILLION LIABILITY INSURANCE WHICH I GOT. AND SMOKE DETECTORS AND WHATNOT. SO I DID ALL THAT. AND THEN I — I BROKE MY CONTRACT WITH THEM THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN FEBRUARY.

I WASN’T HAPPY WITH THE WAIT — WAY IT WAS GOING. THEY DIDN’T ALLOW ME TO SCREEN ANY OF THE GUESTS. I WASN’T HAPPY WITH THE GUESTS. BUT I CONTINUED OPERATING THE REPRESENTAL PROPERTY. I HAVE — RENTAL PROPERTY. I HAVE HERE A A LETTER FROM THE COLLECTIONS DEPARTMENT OUTLINING ALL THE PAYMENTS THAT I’VE MADE. MY TAX PAYMENTS STARTING IN JANUARY OF 2015. TOTALING $4,727, EVERY SINGLE MONTH. I HAVE A RECORD — I HAVE MY TWO INSURANCE POLICIES FOR 2015 AND 2016, WHICH HAVE MY MILLION-DOLLAR LIABILITY COVERAGE. I ALSO — I HAD A FIRE INSPECTION, WHICH I DIDN’T HAVE A COPY OF, BUT IT PASSED. AND THE REASON I’M HERE IS BECAUSE IN JANUARY, I STARTED HEARING THE NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE CHANGING TO THE ZONING — TO THE RULES ABOUT THE PERMITS. AND SO I WENT ON THE WEBSITE AND I THOUGHT I’D JUST CHECK IT OUT. AND I READ ABOUT THE RENEWAL FOR THE YEARLY PERMITS. AND I — THAT WAS THE FIRST I LEARNED THAT THEY WERE YEARLY PERMITS. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS A ZONING CHANGE AND THAT ONCE IT WAS — ONCE WERE YOU GIVEN YOUR PERMIT NUMBER FOR THAT, THAT IT WAS LIKE THAT.

SO I WENT DOWN TO CODES AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT I WANTED TO RENEW MY PERMIT AND I GIVE THEM MY PERMIT NUMBER AND THEY SAID THAT NOBODY HAD EVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR ME. AND HE SAID THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO FAIL ME. AND THEN HE GAVE ME THE PAPER THAT SAID I HAD TO MAIL THE LETTERS AND PUT THIS ON MY PROPERTY AND WHATNOT. SO I HAVE HERE. I DON’T KNOW IF I NEED TO SUBMIT THIS, BUT I HAVE THE RECORD OF MY TAXES PAID. >> SO YOU HAVE THE INSURANCE, YOU HAD THE TAXES, YOU DID EVERYTHING BUT SOMEBODY DIDN’T SUBMIT ALL THAT WITH AN APPLICATION.

>> THEY TOLD ME — THE REASON I SIGN — I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DEAL IS BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO DEAL WITH ALL THE PERMITTING. SO I AGREED TO THAT. AND THEY GAVE — TURNS OUT THAT THE NUMBER THAT THEY GAVE ME WHICH THEY TOLD ME WAS A PERMIT, WAS ACTUALLY MY HOTEL OCCUPANCY% TAX NUMBER. >> WHEN YOU SAID, WHAT’S MY PERMIT NUMBER, THEY SAID — >> 500545. >> THEY BASICALLY LIED TO YOU. >> YEAH, THEY MISINFORMED ME.

SO THAT’S — THAT’S WHY I AM 0 HERE TODAY. — WHY I’M HERE TODAY. AND I HAVE MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR IS HERE. IN SUPPORT. I ASKED HALF A DOZEN OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO I KNOW. >> AND WE HAVE LETTERS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT. THERE ARE SOME LETTERS IN OPPOSITION, TOO. >> IS THIS YOUR HOME? >> YES. >> SO THE STANDARD BATTERY OF QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY LISTINGS — OR RENTALS BOOKED NOW? IS IT STILL POLICED? WHAT’S THE SITUATION? >> THE HOUSE AND AND I WILL LISTED.

I DID NOT DELIST THE HOUSE. >> WHY DIDN’T YOU? >> I WASN’T ASKED TO AND I REALIZED NOW SITTING HERE THAT I SHOULD HAVE. BUT THE GENTLEMAN AT THE ZONING SAID, AT YOUR HEARING HE SAYS THIS LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD CASE. I’M SURE YOU’LL GET IT. HE SAID, JUST DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. AND I DID NOT — I 2 DELIST MY MY LISTING — I DIDN’T DELIST MY LISTING. >> YOU — >> SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU CAN’T RENT IT. >> NO, I DID NOT. >> SO HAVE YOU RENTED IT — YOU DIDN’T GET THE LETTER. YOU GOING DOWN THERE TO FIND OUT? >> I WENT DOWN ON MY OWN AND I NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER SAYING I WASN’T ALLOWED TO.

>> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU RENTED IT? >> I HAD GUESTS TWO DAYS I BELIEVE AFTER THE — I WENT DOWN TO CODES INITIALLY IN JANUARY WIERKS WOULD YOU WILL TO BE CANCEL — >> YES, IF I’M DENIED — YES, I WOULD HAVE TO. I WOULD BE WITHING THE — WHATEVER YOU DECIDE I WOULD BE WILLING TO CANCEL ANY BOOKINGS I HAVE. >> DID YOU RENT THIS PAST WEEKEND? >> NO. >> I JUST HAPPEN TO LIVE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET ABOUT FIVE DOORS FROM YOU. >> YES. >> I RODE GUY AND I SAW FIVE CARS IN YOUR DRIVEWAY. >> YES, I HAD FRIENDS OVER WHO WERE PLAYING MUSIC WITH ME. >> IN. >> IN GEORGIA? >> FROM GEORGIA, TEXAS, YEAH. THERE WAS A BROWN VAN. I CAN TELL YOU WHO THOSE CARS BELONG TO.

THEY’RE MUSICIANS. THEY’RE — >> THE CARS. >> ONE OF MY CARS IS MY GIRLFRIEND. YEAH. I CAN TELL YOU WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE. THEY’RE MUSICIANS IN TOWN AND THEY WERE AT MY HOUSE PLAYING MUSIC. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME. >> NO. WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE — DO WE HAVE — WE DON’T HAVE OPPOSITION, DO WE? >> NO. >> WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? >> DO YOU HAVE PEOPLE — IN SUPPORT? >> SURE, IF YOU WANT TO. >> BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR. >> YES, COME, COME. I’M SORRY. >> I WAS LIKE — >> YOU’VE HEN HERE FOR HOURS AND HOURS — BEEN HERE FOR HOURS AND HOURS. >> LET ME TALK. MY NAME IS STACY SHARKY. 4113 PRESIDENT BUSH HILL ROAD AND I — BRUSH HILL ROAD AND I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO BRIAN.

HE’S BEEN A GREAT NEIGHBOR. HE’S A GREAT PERSON. HE NEVER COMPLAINS ABOUT THEM. AND EVERYONE THAT HE’S EVER HAD STAY AT HIS HOUSE, I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHEN THEY’RE THERE. SO I DON’T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS AT ALL. HE’S BEEN A GREAT NEIGHBOR. AND ZERO DISTRACTION. I’M MORE THAN HAPPY TO SUPPORT HIM IN OBTAINING THIS PERMIT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBOR? NO? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I MUST SAY, I HAVEN’T HEARD ANY LOUD PARTIES. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? >> YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> HI, THERE. MY NAME IS SARA JANE NELSON. AND I LIVE IN EAST NASHVILLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, 603 LA MEANTIME. AND I’M ALSO — LA MONT. AND I’M A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND I’VE WATCHED THIS PROCESS PLAY OUT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF AIRBNB PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE IN THE WAY THEY RUN THINGS. I CAN’T THINK OF ONE THAT IS MORE REGIMENTED AND MORE RULE-FOLLOWING — I WAS ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED AT THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY MISLED HIM — THAT THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY MISLED HIM. BUT HE’S PAID THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES AND WHEN THEY WENT INTO THE TAX OFFICE T WOMAN SAID YOU’RE BRIAN IRWIN.

WOODBURN. GOOD ONES — YOU’RE ONE OF THE GOOD ONES. YOU PAY YOUR TAXES. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL — >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I’D LIKE TOE START OFF BY — LIKE TO START OFF BY MENTIONING WHAT SHE JUST MENTIONED. THAT NORMALLY, IF YOU OPERATE WITHOUT A PERMIT, YOU’RE NOT PAYING TAXES AND HAVING INSURANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO THIS IS SPECIAL — AND I THINK ONE OF OUR FIRST CASES WAS LIKE THIS THAT SOMEONE RELIED ON A PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PERSON AND THEY THOUGHT THEY’D GOT AN PERMIT AND THEY NEVER DID DID. SO DISCUSSION. >> THE WHOLE ISSUE IS NEW. RELATIVELY NEW TO THE CITY. AND YOU KNOW, I’M REALLY — YOU KNOW, I — WE HAD A CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS TOLD NOT TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY DID. IN THIS CASE I DON’T HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THAT THIS PERSON WAS NEVER GIVEN THE INSTRUCTION TO NOT DO ANYTHING.

AND SO FAR THEY’VE ALL BEEN DIFFERENT AND THIS IS THE FIRST WE’VE HEARD AND I’M PRETTY EMPATHETIC TO THE SITUATION. AND I THINK HE OPERATED UNDER THE IMPRESSION HE HAD A PERMIT. I THINK THERE’S EVERY OUNCE OF EVIDENCE THAT HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD A PERMIT. AND SO — AND DID EVERYTHING RIGHT WITHIN THAT PERMIT SO I DON’T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FINDING HIM GUILTY AND LETTING HIM KEEP DOING WHAT HE’S DOING. >> YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> SURE. I’LL MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS RENTED WITHOUT A PERMIT.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WERE TESTIFIED TO IN THIS CASE, INVOLVING MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES INCLUDING PAYING TAXES EVERY MONTH, THAT THERE OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY WAS — — THAT I WOULD SAY THAT THIS OPERATOR IS ELIGIBLE FOR A PERMIT AT THE END OF THIS MEETING. >> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I’LL SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GET WITH THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR — THE ZONING OFFICE BEFORE YOU START CONTINUING. BUT YOU NEED A PERMIT. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE MOST OF THE THINGS YOU NEED ALREADY. BUT YOU KNOW, TALK TO THEM. >> JOHN, I HAVE — I KNOW WE HAVE ONE MORE. WE HAVE ONE MORE STRP. >> I THINK NEXT ONE IS A — >> IS IT — INAPPROPRIATE TO FLIP-FLOP THOSE OR — >> I THINK WE MIGHT NEED A BREAK.

WE NEED A BREAK. >> OKAY. >> SO JOHN MICHAEL, WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. >> WE’LL RECONVENE SHORTLY. ISHING OFF THE LAST ONE BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE REMAINDER. DOCKET, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THE NEXT CASE IS 2017-046. AND IT PROCEED THE REGULAR HEARING OF OUR AGENDA. THE NEXT IS 045. SO MR. ROBERT RON KEY, THE APPELLANT, AND MORE THAN OF THE PROPERTY AT 1521 KIRKWOOD AVENUE. THIS OF COURSE IS AN ITEM A APPEAL CHALLENGING THE DIDN’T YEAL OF THE SHORT — DENIAL OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THE FACE OF THE BUILDINGS, ALTHOUGH THAT’S OBVIOUSLY OUTDATED. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 46? SEEING NONE, MR. CONWAY, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ADDRESS THEM AS NEEDED. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ROBERT CONWAY. I’M JUICING SOME — I’M A LITTLE HUNGRY RIGHT NOW.

I LIVE AT 1011 WOODMONT BOULEVARD. I ACTUALLY BOUGHT THIS HOME — SIGNED THIS HOME FOR MY SON AND HE’S A SENIOR AT BELMONT — >> I CAN’T HEAR YOU. >> SPEAK UP? SO I BOUGHT THIS HOME, CO-SIGNED A LOAN FOR MY SON FOR THIS LOAN LOAN — I’M HERE FOR HIM. HE’S GRADUATING THIS COMING DECEMBER, NEXT DECEMBER. AND HE’S GETTING MARRIED THIS JUNE. SO HE AND HIS FIANCEE WERE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD LIVE IN BUT STILL AFFORD IT AND BY DOING SO, THEY SIGNED UP FOR AIRBNB. SO THIS — WE INITIALLY — FIRST OFF, WE’VE NEVER RECEIVED A LEFTER.

— A LETTER, SO WE WEREN’T I GUESS CAUGHT, IF YOU WILL. >> HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT ALL OF THIS? >> LAST AUGUST WE — I SAY WE. HE STARTED RENTING IT OUT. AND AFTER JUST A FEW RENTERS, WE REALIZED THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT AFTER TALKING TO SOME PEOPLE THAT I WORK WITH. HE WENT DOWN AND HE ACTUALLY CAME DOWN IN AUGUST TO APPLY. AND THEY ASKED HIM TO PULL UP HIS SITE. HE PULLED IT UP AND HE HAD A COUPLE OF FEEDBACKS AND THEY SAID YOU’VE BEEN RENTING IT AND THEY DENIED HIS PERMIT. SO RIGHT AFTER THAT, HE HAD MAYBE TWO RENTERS AFTER THAT. AND WE HAD STOPPED. WE LITERALLY STOPPED. WE HAD SOME OTHER WORK WE HAD TO DO ON THE HOME BECAUSE THERE WAS A GARAGE BEHIND IT THAT WAS GETTING COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. IT’S BEEN THERE 40 YEARS, THE GARAGE.

AND WE JUST BOUGHT THE HOME IN JUNE. BUT WE GOT THE LETTER FROM CODES SAYING TO TEAR DOWN THE SHED. SO WE STOPPED RENDING IT AND WE STARTED — THE SHED WAS A TWO-CAR GARAGE. IT WAS BIG. SO IT TOOK TIME TO GET THAT OFF. NOW THAT WE’RE BACK, I TRAVEL PROBABLY 90% OF THE TIME. I’VE NEVER HOME. AND — I’M NEVER HOME. AND THIS IS JUST — HE — WE JUST DIDN’T KNOW. WE HAD NO IDEA. AND THEN AFTER TALKING TO PEOPLE, WE STOPPED AFTER THAT. >> WHEN YOU FIRST FOUND OUT IN AUGUST, WHY SIT TAKING SO LONG TO GET HERE? >> WELL, WE WEREN’T GOING TO APPEAL IT BECAUSE WE WEREN’T SURE IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT AGAIN. WE’RE GONE FOR CHRISTMAS. WE HAVEN’T REALLY DONE ANYTHING. I’VE BEEN PAYING THE NOTE FOR HIM. >> SO WHEN IS THE LAST TIME IT’S BEEN RENTED? >> IT’S BEEN A LONG TIME. I WOULD SAY PRIOR TO OCTOBER.

WE HAD A COUPLE OF — STILL ON THE BOOKS AND THEN WE STOPPED. >> OKAY. >> BEEN A LONG TIME. >> QUESTIONS? >> DO YOU INTEND FOR YOUR SON TO LIVE LIVE IN THIS HOUSE OR DO YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT STRP FOR PERMIT? >> HE LIVES THERE FULL TIME. IT’S HIS FULL-TIME RESIDENCE. >> SO IT WILL BE OWNER OCCUPIED? >> AND EAST HE GETS MARRIED — AS SOON AS HE GETS MARRIED IN JUNE, HIS WIFE WILL MOVE IN WITH HIM. >> WHEN YOUR FOLKS AT WORK, WHAT DID THEY SAY? >> THEY ASKED ME. IT’S A WORKOUT GROUP OF MEN THAT WE WORK OUT ON SATURDAYS AT SEVIER PARK. AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. AND ONE OF THE GUYS DOES THE SAME THING. AND HE SAID DID YOU GET A PERMIT. YOU KNOW, AND ALL THAT. I WAS LIKE — NOPE. I HAD NO IDEA. AND AT THE TIME, LIKE I THINK WE HAD SAID, AIRBNB STARTED POSTING IT IN JANUARY, BUT WE HAD NO IDEA. WE’D BEEN IN NASHVILLE ABOUT THREE YEARS. I LIVE ON WOODMONT. MY SON LIVES THERE AND MY DAUGHTER ACTUALLY LIVES OVER ON PARIS AVENUE AROUND THE CORNER.

SO WE’RE ALL THREE WITHIN A MILE OF EACH OTHER. >> ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, SIR. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION. >> I NOTICED WE HAVE FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. BUT NO ONE SAYS THERE WAS ANY REASON. THEY AREN’T CITING ANYTHING. >> OFTEN PARTICULARLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO AIRBNB NO MATTER WHAT. SO I THINK ABSENT SOME EXPLANATION, YOU CAN FILE THOSE IN THE PEOPLE WHO JUST DON’T WANT ANY AIRBNB. >> AND I RESPECT THE OPPOSITION. AND I RESPECT THE FACT THAT FOLKS MAY HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WITH METRO COUNCIL ON WHERE YOU CAN RENT AND WHY. BUT THE ABILITY OF THIS PERSON TO PUTT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WE — IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MAIN BASIS OF — THE ONLY BASIS OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS. NO ONE HAS SAID THEY OPERATED — THIS LOUD — THEY WERE IRRESPONSIBLE OR THAT TYPE OF THING.

SO — >> THAT’S JUST TYPICAL MORE TRAFFIC AND PROPERTY VALUES, BLAH BLAH BLAH. >> I MEAN, THIS — YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS FEELS A LITTLE LIKE THE LAST CASE IN THAT THERE WERE — THERE WERE RENTALS AFTERWARDS, THE LAST ONE WAS IN OCTOBER. SO YOU KNOW — IF WE — >> THEY DIDN’T GET A LETTER, DID THEY? THAT’S WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID. >> WE DID NOT. >> THE FIRST ONE GOT A LETTER AND THIS ONE GOT NO LETTER. THIS WAS THAT VERBAL THING. >> IT WAS JUST A OOPS, I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE LAW. >> AND I GUESS MY POINT IS FROM OCTOBER TO NOW, IT’S IN THAT KIND OF FOUR-MONTH RANGE ANYWAY. SO IT FEELS LIKE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN RENTED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SUFFICIENT TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE. >> MOTION SOMEONE. >> IT’S YOUR DAY, DAVID. >> WELL, I WILL MOVE THAT WITH FIND THAT THE STRONG ADMINISTRATOR — ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT IN DETERMINING THAT THIS PROPERTY HAD BEEN RENTED PRIOR TO OBTAINING A PERMIT. BASED ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT THE APPLICANT — ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS RENTED AFTER THEY WERE TOLD THEY WERE TO HAVE A PERMIT, IT WAS NOT — THE SAME TYPE OF COMMUNICATION AND IT HAS NOT BEEN RENTED IN FOUR MONTHS.

APPROXIMATELY. AND SO THEREFORE WE WILL MAKE THIS HOMEOWNER AVAILABLE TO REQUIRE PERMIT AT THE END OF THIS MEETING. >> OKAY, MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I’LL SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GO SEE THE ZONING PEOPLE BEFORE YOU START RENTING AGAIN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> GET YOUR PERMIT. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT CASE IS PRIOR ONE FROM THE AGENDA, 2017-045 FOR PROPERTY AT 2413 PAFERRED DRIVE IN — FAPFORD DRIVE. JASON LINCOLN IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A CONTEAKSUAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. THAT’S 17.36.470 IN UNDERCODE. SPECIFICALLY — ZONING CODE. UNDER SUBSECTION D — HENCE T REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE FOR TWO DRIVEWAYS RATHER THAN THE ONE.

THIS IS AN R-10 ZONING DISTRICT. IT’S A ZONING MAP SHOWS HERE ALONG WITH THE IDENTIFIED A AND B PARCELS THERE OR PROPERTIES THERE. THE AERIAL VIEW A BIT DATED. GIVES YOU A FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN QUESTION. THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IS ACTUALLY REVISED SOMEWHAT. YOU MAY RECALL THIS PROPERTY WAS THE SUBJECT OF A CASE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE BOARD I BELIEVE IN MIDDAYS OF 2016. AND THEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT AFTER TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS MORE. SO THE REVISED PLAN THAT’S BEING SUBMITTED AND REQUEST THAT’S BEING MADE TO YOU TO SOME EXTENT, WHATEVER EXTENT, TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THEY RECEIVED. THE SITE PHOTOS NOW A BIT DATED ARE FROM MY PRIOR SITE VISIT TO THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN HERE AND THE VIEW UP AND DOWN. BECAUSE THERE IS OPPOSITION PRESENT, THE APPELLANTS WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. GENTLEMEN, YOU’LL WANT TO RESERVE WHATEVER PORTION OF TIME YOU MIGHT WISH FOR REBUTTAL OUT OF THIS ORIGINALLY ALIKE KATYED 15 MINUTES. — ALLOCATED 15 MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS TOM WISER. RHYME REPRESENTING MR. LINCOLN SELLING THESE HOMES.

I LIVE AT 323 McKINL DRIVE, JUST A FEW BLOCKS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. >> JASON LINCOLN, 3167 BRIM STEAD DRIVE IN FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE. AND I’M THE OWNERT PROPERTY. >> TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT AND WHY YOU NEED THIS FROM US. >> WHEN WE FIRST APPROACHED THE PROPERTY AND THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY WE TRIED TO FOLLOW IT IN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY. WE SAW — WE SAW THAT THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY CALLED FOR A 12-FOOT WIDE SINGLE DRIVEWAY THAT DIDN’T REALLY AFFORD ANY OTHER TYPE OF PARKING SITUATION FOR TWO HOMES.

FOR FEAR OF HAVING THE CARS, THE TWO — USUALLY TWO CARS PER HOME, END UP PARKING ON THE STREET, THAT’S THE REASON OF THE FIRST APPEAL. WE DIDN’T REALIZE IT AT THE TIME THAT THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY, THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN OPPOSITION TO THAT. WHEN WE — WHICH CAUGHT US OFF GUARD. I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO SEND OUT THIS LETTER, AN APOLOGY LETTER TO, TRY TO OPEN UP THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION. AND I DID RECEIVE SEVERAL PHONE CALLS FROM KEN DICKENS, DAWN T NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND US IN SUPPORT OF THE TWO-DRIVEWAY SCENARIO. SO WE TRIED TO REVISE THE TWO DRIVEWAYS SCENARIO TO TRY TO MAKE — TO MEET POTENTIALLY THE OPPOSITION’S CONCERNS. AND THAT’S WHAT’S BRINGING US HERE TODAY. >> YEAH. I GUESS — YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO’S NOT IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT IS IN THE ADJOINING DISTRICT BUT WHO SHARES — WHO REPRESENTS THE SAME CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY, SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN’T DO THIS AND I’M REALLY CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP AND — WE HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF NEIGHBORS LAST TIME, SO MANY MAKES, THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN.

AND I GUESS — YOU KNOW, WE WERE PRESENTED WITH A HARDSHIP LAST TIME THAT THE UTILITY POLE WAS THAT WAS PLACED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO I DON’T — I GUESS I JUST STILL DON’T WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIP IS AND WHY YOU HAVE ANOVER — AN OVERLAY THAT SAYS TO BUILD TWO HOMES. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TWO DRIVEWAYS. BUT I DON’T GET THE HARDSHIP AND I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT APEER TO BE TWO LOTS — APPEAR TO BE TWO LOTS — SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND — WHAT AM I NOT LOOKING AT? >> THE HARDSHIP IS THE WAY THAT THE LOT IS POSITIONED AND THE SETBACKS THAT OCCUR AND THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY. AND THE WIDTH OF THAT SINGLE DRIVEWAY WILL FORCE THE HOMEOWNERS TO PARK ON THE STREET. SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN VOICED THAT IS A CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND TRYING TO KEEP THE CARS OFF THE STREET AND THE HOMEOWNERS A PLACE TO PARK IS THE ORIGINAL CONCERN. >> OKAY. I MEAN — I STILL DON’T GET IT.

>> THE HARDSHIP — >> I GUESS — I DON’T UNDERSTAND — I MEAN, THERE’S NO SHORTAGE OF HOUSES OR LOTS THAT LOOK JUST LIKE THIS THAT HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY IN THE MILD — MIDDLE THAT GO TO TWO PARKING PADS. YOU SEE IT ALL OVER TOWN SO I’M NOT SURE WHY THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES ALL OVER TOWN THAT HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION. >> WE’RE NOT OPPOSED TO DOING THAT, BUT THE WAY WE’RE TOLD WE HAVE TO DO IT.

THE SINGLE DRIVE COMING UP IS 12 FEET WIDE AND YOU T AT THE TOP AND THIS CAN ONLY BE 12 FEET WIDE AS WELL, WHICH ISN’T AN OPERATIONAL DRIVEWAY. SOMEBODY CAN’T PULL IN AND BACK OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY. AND IF — YOU KNOW, MRS. JONES PARKS FIRST AND MR. JONES COMES HOME, SHE CAN’T GET OUT. SO NOW — UNLESS YOU BACK IN — IT JUST DOESN’T — OPERATIONAL SOP — SO I THINK WE’RE COPING TO KEEPING THE SHARED DRIVEWAY AS LONG AS I CAN MAKE A TOP T PART 8 TEEN FEET WIDE INSTEAD — 18 FEET WIDE INSTEAD OF 12. >> WE’RE TRYING TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING FORCED TO PARK ON THE STREETS. I BELIEVE IT WAS MARY THAT INCLUDED AN EMAIL THAT POINTING OUT THE 2400 BLOCK OF DECARTER AVENUE, WHICH IS — THAT’S SHARED DRIVEWAY. LITERALLY 36 FEET WIDE. SO THE DIFFERENCE ON A SMALLER 65-FOOT LOT, 75-FOOT LOT ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE. OURS IS 100-FOOT WIDE LOT.

CALLING FOR A 12-FOOT DRIVE. AND WHAT WE’RE REQUESTING IS TO BE ABLE TO WIDEN THAT ENOUGH OR AT LEAST THE T OR BRANCH OUT ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR BOTH CARS TO EACH HOUSE PARK, SO NO ONE IS FORCED TO PARK ON THE STREET. THE TWO DRIVEWAYS NAR — TWO-DRIVEWAY MAY SCENARIO SEEMEO MAKE SENSE FOR US ESTHETICALLY SPEAK CONDISIEWSIVE TO THE — CONDUCIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERING THE WIDTH OF THIS LOT.

HOWEVER, IF NEED BE, WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH COMING TO A SOLUTION WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT MADE MORE SENSE THAT PREVENTED THE CARS — OR THE HOMEOWNERS FROM PARKING ON THE STREET. SO THAT’S OUR GOAL. >> IS ONE OF YOU THE BUILDER? AND YOU’RE THE REALTOR? >> REALTOR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD RIGHT NOW? YOU’LL HAVE 12 MINUTES AND 36 SECONDED FOR REBUTTAL. WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. >> HI. MY NAME IS MORGAN MEETENS. 2412PAFFORD DRIVE. THIS IS MY THIRD TIME HERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. THE FIRST WAS TO GET THE CONCESSIONUAL OVERLAY PASSED. — CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY PASSED. I WAS HERE IN DECEMBER AND NOW A THIRD TIME.

AND I’M NOT PARTICULARLY PLEASED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE TO BE QUITE FRANK, IT’S CLEAR TO ME THAT I THINK IT’S CLEAR TO YOU AS WELL, THIS IS ABOUT FINANCIAL GAIN FOR THE DEVELOPER AND IF THE DRIVEWAY WAS SUCH A BIG PROBLEM, THEY PROBABLY SHOULD ONLY HAVE BUILT ONE HOUSE. AND FRANKLY, THE CONTEXTUAL OVERPLAY, MY IN — OVERLAY, MY INTENTION WAS TO LIMIT THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY COVERED ALL OF THESE. I TALKED TO BOTH THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LOT THAT IS IN QUESTION. THEY’RE BOTH REALLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS. THEY’RE REALLY FRUSTRATED. I TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. THEY’RE REALLY ANGRY AND REALLY FRUSTRATED WITH THIS AS WELL. WE APPRECIATE THE LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN BUT IT’S JUST CLOUDING THE FACT THAT THIS IS FINANCIAL GAINS FOR THEM AND REALLY ISN’T ABOUT MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD A BETTER PLACE. SO I GOT TOGETHER WITH SOME NEIGHBORS AND COMPILED SOME POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPEAL, NUMBER ONE, THIS IS NOT A A HARDSHIP VARIANCE.

THE APPLICANT HAS — CAN AND HAS DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY. HE IS DESIRE IS PURELY FINANCIAL. TWO, WHEN HE PULLED THE PERMIT, HE KNEW THE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS OF THE PARCEL. NUMBER 3, THE OVERLAY EXIST FORCE A REASON AND CLEARLY OUTLINES THE DRIVEWAY OPTIONS. NUMBER FOUR, IF STORM WATER RUNOFF IS TRULY A CONCERN, WHICH THEY HAD STATED IN THEIR LETTER IT WAS, THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS THAT COULD ASSIST WITH STORM WATER AND STILL FIT IN WITH THE OVER LAY. MR. LINCOLN CAN USE PERVIOUS CONSTREET PAVERS OR INSTALL RAIN GUARD DOWN THE SLOPE.

AND THE UTILITY POLE IN QUESTION FROM LAST TIME IF YOU REMEMBER, IT WAS MOVED THIS MORNING BY NES. SO IS NO LONGER IN THE WAY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY THAT WE’VE WORKED HARD TO PUT IN PLACE AND DENY THIS APPEAL. >> CAN I JUST CORRECT SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD? >> SURE. >> THE FIRST TIME YOU CAME HERE IT WAS LIKELY — WELL, DEFINITELY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TO THIS BOARD. >> PLANNING COMMISSION. >> I’M SO SORRY. I WONDERED WHY NONE OF YOU SEEMED THE SAME. >> I WAS LIKE, SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE STAYED ON. BUT OKAY. YES, THANK YOU. IT’S MY THIRD TIME SITTING IN A REALLY LONG MEETING TO FIGHT FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> I UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANTED IT TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY WHAT THE PROCESS IS. >> OKAY. >> HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO HAVE YOUR CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY PASSED? >> I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. WE WENT TO ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD — WE WENT TO ALL THE HOUSES IN YOU ARE ON NEIGHBORHOOD TWICE AND TALKED TO ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING AND THEN WENT TO — A MEETING IN THIS ROOM THAT WAS NOT WITH THE ZONING BOARD. AND THEN A LEGISLATIVE HEARING AND IT WAS QUITE A LOT OF WORK AND I WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT AND VERY DISAPPOINTED WHEN THIS STARTED HAPPENING BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, THIS IS WHY I DID THIS. I THOUGHT WE WERE PROTECTING OURSELVES FROM THIS. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, THANK YOU, SIR. >> WATER GOING TO HAVE TIME — YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TIME — THIS IS OPPOSITION. SO WE’RE GOING TO HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COME FORWARD. SO YOU HEARD THE OPPOSITION.

WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE? I WOULD SAY THIS IS NOT A FINANCIAL GAIN. RATHER, WE GET — WHETHER WE GET TWO DRIVEWAYS OR SINGLE SHARED, AS STATESSED IN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF THE HOMES. >> SO THIS CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE AND SHE TALKED ABOUT WORKING HARD. WE HEARD THERE THE CORNER PERSONAL FROM THE NEIGHBORING DISTRICT — COUNCILPERSON FROM THE NEIGHBORING DISTRICT, WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT IF ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE OPPOSING THIS? >> WE STILL BELIEVE THAT IT’S ACTUALLY BEST FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> BECAUSE? >> TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE STREET, PARKING ON THE STREET. >> OKAY. >> AND FINANCIALLY, I MEAN, WHAT I PROPOSED SHARED WILL COST ME MORE THAN WHAT I’VE GOT A PERMIT FOR. SO I MEAN, I’M JUST TRYING TO GIVE THE NEW HOMEOWNERS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN USE. >> WE DID HEAR THAT THAT POLE HAD BEEN MOVED TODAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT AND DOES THAT CHANGE THE SITUATION? >> NO. I MOVED THAT JUST IN — JUST IN CASE, YOU KNOW, THIS THING GOES THROUGH HERE. PLUS, YOU KNOW, I’M STILL — I WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IF THAT MAKES EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPY AS LONG AS I CAN GET THAT EXTRA SIX FEET TO PARK TWO CARS UP AT THE TOP. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? OKAY, WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? >> FIRST — THE HARDSHIP. I DON’T SEE A HARDSHIP MYSELF. >> I DON’T EITHER. >> ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE BE DENIED AND WE FIND THERE’S NO HARDSHIP.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY, MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. JOHN MICHAEL. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD REQUIRES FLIPPING OF THE PAGE. 2017-053 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2165 NOLENSVILLE PIKE. INS A MIXED — THIS IS A MIX USED DEVELOPMENT IN A CS ZONING DISTRICT. IT’S A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN PARTICULAR. TAKE A LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO HERE. THE REQUEST IS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK RIRMT OF 15 FEET DOWN TO FOUR, AND ALSO A REDUCTION IN THE SKY PLAIN OR HEIGHT CONTROL PLAIN HERE AT THE HEIGHT OF 30 FEET IS WHAT’S ALLOWED AT THE SETBACK WITH NO LIMIT ON HOW TALL A STRUCTURE CAN BE. BUT A ONE AND A HALF TO ONE RATIO ON THE HEIGHT CONTROL PLAIN BEGINNING AT THE SETBACK LINE. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED HERE IS PROBABLY MORE VISIBLE IN THE HARD COPY OF YOUR PACKET BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT GIVES YOU A FEEL FOR THE LAYOUT OF THE INTERCEPTION ON TO NAPOLEON AVENUE.

FOR THOSE FAMILIAR, YOU’LL RECOGNIZE THIS TO BE JUST BEYOND THE FAIRGROUNDS OUT OF BOUNDS FROM DOWNTOWN BUT BEFORE THE 440 INTERCHANGE. TO TRY TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISOLATED SHOT OF SOME OF THE GRAPHICS THAT WERE ALSO INCLUDED ON THE SITE PLAN TO SHOW YOU THE LAYOUT OF THE SKY PLAIN HERE FROM THE PROPOSED SETBACK. THIS IS FROM THE NOLENSVILLE PIKE AREA AND GIVES YOU AN INCREASE THAT’S PERMITTED BY THE BASE ZONING CODE AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT THEY SEEK.

THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION RATHER THAN A TRADITIONAL VARIANCE BECAUSE IT FATHER’S DAY IN THE URBAN ZONING — FALLS IN THE URBAN ZONING OVERLAY. AGAIN, FROM THE SAME SITE PLAN, BUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER CLOSE-UP OF THE VISUAL PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE UPPER FLOORS OF THE BUILDING WITH THE RETAIL ON THE BASE LEVEL. FINALLY, FROM MY RECENT SITE VISIT, THE UNDEVELOPED LOT LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE FAIRGROUNDS AND THUS DOWNTOWN NASHVILLE. THE WO SHOTS GOING UP AND DOWN KNOWLESVILLE ROAD AND THE VIEW — NOLENSVILLE ROAD.

IS THERE STILL OPPOSITION IN THIS ROOM FOR THIS CASE? YES. AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTLESS HAVE 15 — APPELLANTS WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. AND I KNOW THEY HAVE OTHER EXHIBITS WITH THEM. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS AND MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION, RESERVING WHATEVER TIME YOU WISH FOR REBUTTAL. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I’M KEPT CAMPBELL. I’M WITH CORE DEVELOPMENT, 2206 21st AVENUE SOUTH IN NASHVILLE. WE HAVE DONE QUITE A FEW DEVELOPMENTS AROUND TOWN AND WE HAVE THIS PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. IT’S ACRES. AND WE’RE SEEKING TO BUILD SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 180 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. WE IN LOOKING AT THE — COMMUNITY CHARACTER MANUAL, IT ENCOURAGES HEIGHTS OF THREE TO FIVE STORIES.

THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER CS ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT AT THE STREET FRONT. AS JOHN MICHAEL INDICATED, IT HAS THE CONTROL PLAIN THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET TO WHATEVER HEIGHT WE WANT TO AS WE STEP BACK FROM THE STREET. BUT AGAIN N KEEPING WITH THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER MANUAL, WE WANT TO PULL THAT DENSITY TO THE FRONT, TO THE STREET FRONT. KEEP THE PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS. WE DO TEND TO TRY TO DEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRST-TIME BUYERS, YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, THAT SORT OF THING, SO WE TEND TO TRY TO PUT ALL OF OUR PARKING AS SURFACE PARKING AS OPPOSED TO GARAGE PARKING, WHICH WOULD DRIVE THE COST UP SIGNIFICANTLY. BUT WE FEEL THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT METRO PLANNING DESIRES FOR THE AREA. THIS IS A HEAVILY TRAVELED CORRIDOR. THERE IS AS YOU’RE AWARE A LOT OF INTEREST IN GETTING A GREAT DEAL MORE DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALONG THE COLLECTOR STREETS AND THESE CORRIDORS SUCH AS NOLENSVILLE, 12th, 8th, CHARLOTTE, ALL THE MAJOR CORRIDORS LEADING INTO DOWNTOWN.

I’VE GOT SHEILA DIAL HERE WEOA TO ASSIST HERE AND THEY’RE WORKING ON THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN. IT HASN’T GONEOND THIS IN — GONE BEYOND THIS INDICATION HERE AND KEN HAWKINS WHO IS WORKING ON THE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPING. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS — >> WELL, SO, AND I’M — I’M SAYING THIS AS A QUESTION AND A AT THE SAME TIME. YOU KNOW, WE’RE NOT FINDING A HARDSHIP. I THINK THE STANDARD THAT WE’RE WORKING TO HERE IS THAT IT DOES NO HARM TO THE SURROUNDING FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

SO WOULD YOU CARE TO ADDRESS THAT? AND WHEN WE SAY NO HARM, WE DEAL WITH — I THINK THE TERMS ARE LIGHT, AIR, SOUND, TRAFFIC. IF YOU COULD JUST HIT ON THOSE POINTS FOR US. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE COULD DEVELOP THIS PLACE IN THE BUILDING IN THE BACK AND PLACING ALL THE PARKING IN THE STREET. I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY SERVE THE PUBLIC — OR WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC GOOD IN TERMS OF HAVING ALL THE PARKING MOVED TO THE FRONT.

YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE SITE WE’VE GOT TWO VERY WIDE EATS, ONE FOR STORM — EASEMENTS, SO WE EITHER BUILD TOWARD THE STREET OR WE PUSH BACK BEHIND THOSE TWO EASEMENTS. AND PUT THE PARKING TO THE FRONT I BELIEVE THAT THERE’S NOTHING HERE THAT IMPAIRS THE PUBLIC GOOD. I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT THAT YOU’RE SEEING BEGINNING TO DEVELOP ON THE MORE HEAVILY TRAVELED CORRIDORS. I DON’T KNOW, I’LL ASK MY CONSULTANTS HERE. >> I WAS — I MIGHT JUST ADD THAT THIS ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADAPTIVE RESIDENTIAL. SO CS ZONING. MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE ABLE TOO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MCSP WITH THE SIDEWALKS AS CALLED FOR AND AGAIN, COMMUNITY CARE — THE DESIGNATION U. ACTUALLY FIVE STORIES AND ALLOWED TO GO TO SEVEN. WE’RE KEEPING IT AT FIVE. WE HAVE A 20-FOOT GRADE CHANGE. THEREFORE, WE’RE SUGGESTING THAT THAT BUILDING STEP JUST TO DEAL WITH THE GRADE CHANGE. >> OKAY. >> ALONG THE GRADE CHANGE — IT’S A LONG — >> IT IS. AND THEREFORE, THAT’S WHY YOU SEE THE BUILDING STEP. >> THE BUILDS ALSO STEP — THE SITE, THE TOPOGRAPHY ACTUALLY RISES YOU A YOU GO UP NAPOLEON, WHICH IS RUNNING NORTH SORT OF UP AND DOWN ON THAT PLAN.

SO IT STEPS IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. I’M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE’S A — JOHN MICHAEL, THERE’S PROBABLY A PHOTO THAT YOU TOOK RIGHT BEFORE THAT. NO, THERE’S NOT ONE GOING UP INTO POLIAN, BUT IT — NAPOLEON. BUT IT RISES IN ELEVATION AS WELL. SO THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE LIGHTER SHADED IF THAT IS INDEED RETAIL, WOULD NEED TO STEP SLIGHTLY WITH THE SITE. BUT IT LOWERS AS YOU GO TO THE RIGHT. WHICH IS GOING NORTH. AND ALSO, I THINK TO POINT OUT ON OUR SETBACK IS YOU PROBABLY CAN’T MAKE IT OUT ON SUCH A SMALL DIAGRAM. BUT WE’RE SHOWING WHAT — YOU KNOW, PER ZONING WHERE THE SETBACK WOULD BE, WHICH IS A DASHED LINE. AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY SITUATED. AND THEY’RE BOTH VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. WE’RE SAYING OUR PROPOSED SETBACK WOULD BE FOUR FEET OFF THE NEW PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT’S TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE’S THE NEW SIDEWALKS AND STANDARDS OFF OF THE ROADS. SO THE FOUR FEET, EIGHT FEET, AND THEN FOUR FEET.

SO WE WOULD BE FOUR FEET OFF OF THAT. IT’S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN LANGUAGE. BUT THAT’S SORT OF THE INTEND. AND WE’RE VERY CLOSE TO WHERE — INTENT. AND WE’RE VERY CLOSE TO WHERE IT WOULD BE. THE BUILDING ITSELF ON — AT THE CORNER OF IN A PEAL YON AND — NAPOLEON AND NOLENSVILLE IS HUGGING A LITTLE BIT TIGHTER TO THE STREET. AND AS YOU GO NORTH TO THE RIGHT, IT’S SET BACK EVEN A LITTLE BIT SLIGHTER. SO WE’RE ABOUT 24 FEET OFF OF THE CURB AT THE FAR RIGHT. AND WE’RE ABOUT 14 FEET OFF OF THE CURB ON THE FAR LEFT. BUT WHAT WE’RE ASKING FOR IS A FOUR-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEW PROPERTY LINE. >> THANK YOU. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S COMMENTS BY — DO THEY HAVE A COPY OF THAT? >> NO. >> OH. I’VE GOING TO SKIP RIGHT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY’RE REQUIRED TO ADVISE US ON THIS.

THESE AREN’T BINDING BUT WE LIKE TO ASK YOUR THOUGHTS AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THEM. ON THE LAST PAGE I BELIEVE — THERE’S THREE RECOMMENDATIONS. BUILDING — PRYING MINIMUM OF ONE PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE, PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG NOLENSVILLE PIKE CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAJOR AND COLLECTOR STREET PLAN AND PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG NAPOLEON AVENUE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL STREETS STANDARDS AND THAT’S THE RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVED WITH THOSE. >> YES. AND THE PLAN BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY INDICATES ALL THREE OF THOSE. SO YES, THAT WOULD BE OUR INTENTION. >> THANK YOU. >> HOW MUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY DO YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE FOR THE NEW SIDEWALKS? >> IT ENDS UP BEING — AROUND FIVE OR SIX FEET.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT’S JUST THE — YEAH, THERE’S NOT REALLY ANYTHING THERE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. YOU’LL HAVE FOR REBUTTAL. OPPOSITION PLEASE COME FORWARD. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON THAT YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. >> MY NAME IS PARDON PARDON PAR. WE HAVE BEEN — WITH THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS, WE’RE THE CAR LOT NEXT TO. BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. FOR GOING ON — YOU CAN’T SEE IT IN THE PICTURES. YOU CAN — WE’VE BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS. YOU KNOW, WE’RE — WE’RE TAX-PAYING CITIZENS. YOU KNOW, WE WERE JUST RECENTLY MADE AWARE OF THIS PROJECT. AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.

ONE IS VISIBILITY OF OUR CAR LOT. WHICH WE THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT US, CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND HOW CLOSE TO THE FRONT OF THE STREET IT IS. THAT IS A CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE. YOU KNOW, WE LOVE BEING A CAR LOT. THIS IS WHAT I KNOW. THIS IS WHAT I’VE DONE. I’VE WORKED WITH MY DAD AT THAT PLACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. WE GENERATE SALES TAX OF $60 ON A MONTHLY BASIS. AND HE AND I, WE JOINTLY PAY OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN INCOME TAX ON A YEARLY BASIS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT I KNOW. I’M NOT A DEVELOPER.

WE DON’T DEVELOP ANYTHING. WE HAVE SEVERAL RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT WE RENT OUT. MY CONCERN IS, AND I TALKED TO KENT ABOUT THIS BEFORE. AND HE’S TOLD ME THAT THIS IS WHAT THE CITY LIKES. BUILDING THE BUILDINGS SO CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROAD, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY JUST ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY IS — YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A TWO-PARKING SPACE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND THEIR APARTMENT COMPLEX IS BUILT IN THE BACK.

I’VE TOLD THEM ABOUT THIS AND THEY’VE TOLD ME THAT THIS IS NOT — YOU KNOW, CONTEMPORARY ANYMORE. EVEN THOUGH THAT PROPERTY WAS BUILT SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO. IT’S A CONCERN FOR US. IT’S A CONCERN ABOUT OUR VISIBILITY, OUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE’RE ALSO AT THE LOW POINT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT’S WHERE ALL THE WATER BASICALLY GOES. AND YOU KNOW, WE WERE HEAVILY HIT BACK IN 2010. IT TOOK US OVER A YEAR TO RECOVER BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF OUR VEHICLES FLOODED.

AND IT WAS DEVASTATING TO US FINANCIALLY. WE’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FLOODING WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT. IT CURRENTLY FLOODS THERE TOO. THOSE CARS, WE HAVE TO MOVE THEM BACK AT LEAST 10, 15 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. BECAUSE OF THE FLOODING ITSELF. THE HEIGHT IS A CONCERN, TOO. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF OUR LOW LOCATION. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THIS BEAMING FIVE-STORY BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO US. THEY HAVE PROMISED POTENTIALLY HAVING A DRIVEWAY BUILT IN BETWEEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES, LIKE THAT — THAT WOULD BE THEIR POINT OF ENTRY. BUT IT’S — IT’S A PROMISE. IT’S SOMETHING THAT THEY’RE GOING TO LOOK INTO. NOT SURE IF THAT WILL HAPPEN.

>> DID YOU WANT THAT DRIVEWAY OR NOT? >> IT WOULD BE NICE. IT WOULD BE NICE THAT — THEIR BUILDING WOULD NOT BE SO CLOSE TO OUR BUILDING. GIVE US SOME VISIBILITY OF OUR OUR SIGN IS ABOUT — ABOUT 20, 20 25 — 25 FIGHT HEAT AND EYEVITZ — FEET HIGH AND IT’S VERY CLOSE TO THEIR PROPERTY. >> QUESTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION? ANY? OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, NO. NOTHING ELSE. >> WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU COME FORWARD AGAIN. ON YOUR REBUTTAL. >> CAN YOU HEAR — >> CHANNEL 3 PROBABLY CAN’T HEAR YOU. SO PLEASE SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE SOMEWHERE. >> SO WE DID PRODUCE — WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING TO SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A REALLY GOOD TURNOUT. WE DID PRODUCE A BOARD, BECAUSE WE HEARD AHEAD OF TIME ABOUT THE SIGN.

AND IN SORT THIS ZONE RIGHT HERE IS SHOWING THEIR SIGN FOR THE CAR DEALERSHIP. AND WE DID WANT TO SHOW THAT EVEN TRAVELING ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN NOLENSVILLE, THAT THIS PROPOSED BUILDING IS AT THE — I GUESS I SHOULD SAY THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH IS — ALL THE WAY UP HERE. AS WE MENTIONED IT WAS ABOUT 24 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB. AND SO THEREFORE IT WOULD NOT BE BLOCKING THEIR SIGN FOR THE DEALERSHIP. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE’S SOME TOPOGRAPHY CHANGE AS YOU’RE GOING UP AND DOWN NOLENSVILLE. SO IT’S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS YOU TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH. BUT WE WANTED TO SNOW THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD NOT BE BLOCK — TO SHOW THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD NOT BE BLOCKING THE SIGN. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE FOLKS ON REBUTTAL? >> YES, I HAVE ONE. THE OPPOSITION SAID THERE WAS A WATER PROBLEM AND FLOODING THERE. IS THERE A STREAM? I DON’T REMEMBER — I’M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. I DON’T REMEMBER ANY STREAM. IS THERE A CREEK OR ANY STREAM CLOSE BY THAT’S CAUSING FLOODING? >> WE ARE NEAR BROWN’S CAREER AND I’M SURE THERE’S SOME SMALLER AREAS THAT DRAIN TO THAT.

I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH A CREEK. >> THE NO TORE YOURSELF BROWN — ANYBODY THAT’S BEEN A DEVELOPER KNOWS ABOUT BROWN’S CREEK. >> CERTAINLY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FAIRGROUNDS GOT WIPED OUT — A LOT OF IT. >> RIGHT. >> ARE YOU UPHILL OR DOWNHILL FROM THE DEALERSHIP? >> WE’RE UPHILL. >> THE DEALERSHIP IS NEXT TO — >> THE DEALERSHIP IS BETWEEN US AND THE FAIRGROUNDS. >> AND BROWN’S CREEK IS AGAIN FURTHER UP TOWARDS THE FAIRGROUNDS. >> FURTHER NORTH. FURTHER NORTH. >> WE’RE NOT IN AN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO BROWN’S CREEK. >> BUT EITHER WAY, YOU STILL HAVE TO BE STORM WATER MIDGATION OF SOME — MITIGATION OF SOME SORT. >> WE WOULD STILL ON THAT ON THE SITE, CORRECT. WE WOULD STILL DEAL WITH OUR OWN STORM WATER. >> AND THAT WOULD MEET THE LID, WHICH IS NOW THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THE WHOLE FIRST INCH TO BE MAINTAINED ON YOUR SITE.

WE HAVE SEWER EASEMENTS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND OUR BUILDING WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE BUILDING BEING MOVED TO THE FRONT OF THE SITE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A SEWER EASEMENT IMMEDIATELY BEHIND WHERE THE BUILDING IS PLACED. >> IS THERE AN ACTUAL SEWER IN THAT EASEMENT? >> YES. STORM SEWER AND SANITARY. THEY’RE TWO SEPARATE EASEMENTS. >> PERHAPS THE SOURCE OF OUR FLOODING. >> SO WE CAN’T MOVE THE BUILDING BACK A LITTLE BIT. WE’D HAVE TO MOVE IT — >> ALL THE WAY BACK. >> A HUNDRED FEET. AND ALSO FURTHER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHERE WE LOC LOCATE OUR DRIVEWAY, WE’RE OPEN CERTAINLY TO PUTTING THE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN — OR CLOSE TO HIS PROPERTY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I DON’T THINK IT WOULD DAMAGE OUR ABILITY TO DESIGN AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING.

BUT WE COULDN’T PROMISE THAT ABSOLUTELY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE’VE GOT TO GET THOSE THINGS STUDIED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS. SO IT’S REALLY OUT OF OUR HANDS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE BE ALLOWED. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THANK YOU. >> DISCUSSION? SO THE OPPOSITION WAS MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SIGN BUT WE SAW THE RENDERING FROM THE ARCHITECT. >> I WAS — I PASSED THAT LOT AND THOUGHT, SOMETHING NICE NEEDS TO BE ON THIS LOT. AND YOU KNOW, I’M GLAD THAT — THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONDOMINIUMS AND I’M GLAD THAT IT’S — WHEN I SAW THE PARKING, I ASSUMED IT WAS FOR THE REASONS THAT THEY SAID, NOT TO BUILD A BIG LARGE DECK THAT WOULD CAUSE THE UNITS TO BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE. SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE, THAT NEIGHBOR — YOU KNOW, I’M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO PUT A CONDITION FOR THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THERE ARE — YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER AGENCIES THAT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT’S WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS IT AND BE OPEN TO IT. AND TO HAVE THAT AS A — YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ALL OTHER THINGS WORK OUT, TO HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION TO CONSIDER. BUT I DO THINK THAT THE HARDSHIP OF — THE FACT THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THIS AND THAT IS HOW THEY’D LIKE FOR OUR CITY TO DEVELOP, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THE THREE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ASKED — >> THE SEWER LINE, TOO. >> AND THAT LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP OF HAVING A SEWER LINE — >> I DON’T THINK WE NEEDED TO FIND A HARD — >> NO, THAT’S THE REASON FOR THE LOCATION. >> I THINK THAT THAT’S — BECAUSE IT’S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WE DON’T HAVE TO FIND A HARDSHIP. BUT I DO THINK THAT IT — IF WE WERE TO SAY, IT’S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BUT LET’S PUT IT BACK, I THINK THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE.

>> RIGHT. >> BUT WITH THAT SAID, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING THIS FELT LIKE THAT THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT TO BEGIN WITH. SO I’M OKAY. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? >> OKAY. WELL, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, RIGHT? >> PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. >> OKAY. SO I’LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON AIR, LIGHT, SHADOW, WIND VELOCITY PATTERNS, OR DETRACT FROM A STRONG PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT. >> I’LL SECOND. >> OKAY. >> CAN WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT IT’S CONDITIONED WITH — SO IT’S IN THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OUTLINED — >> SURE.

>> IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? >> YES. >> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES NEWSPAPERSLY. AND FOR — UNANIMOUSLY. AND FOR THE LAST CASE, I AM RECUSING MYSELF BECAUSE NOT THAT I HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS CASE, BUT THE SELLER OR MY COUSIN. SO I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU ALL TO DO WHATEVER. >> OUR VICE CHAIRMAN, MR. TAYLOR WILL CHAIR THE FINAL CASE OF THE DAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, MR. EWING. THE FINAL CASE IS 2017-054 AT 1414 CHARLOTTE AVENUE, JUST OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE DOWNTOWN CORE. THE APPELLANT, BERT MORTON, REPRESENTING PATEL, SUMANBHAI, SANKET, OWNERS. PROPERTY, QUESTIONING A VARIANCE FROM LANDSCAPE ARE YOU EVER REQUIREMENT THERE IS THE MUI A DON’T ZONING DISTRICT. TOE CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT-STORY HOTEL. THE SITE PLAN SHOWN HERE PROPOSED A NINE STORY BUT I THINK THAT WAS AN EARLY SITE PLAN. GIVES A LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY VIS-A-VIS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT THE TOP PART. THAT’S WHERE MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION WILL TAKE PLACE WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT OF D-5 LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

THE RECENT SITE VISIT REMINDS US THIS IS THE OLD HATOX PHARMACY. THE FEW ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN THE VIEW IN THE UPPER LEFT HAN CORNER BACK INTO — LEFT-HAND CORNER BACK INTO DOWNTOWN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? IF NOT, THEN THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS. >> BERT MORTON, 844 BATTERY LANE.

NASHVILLE. THANKS FOR LETTING US COME AND TALK TO YOU. CLIENT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES AT 1414, 1502, AND 1508 CHARLOTTE. AND THE — THE OUTLINE OF THE BUILDING IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING THERE. WE’VE COME TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MUA ZONING DISTRICT. SO SET BACKS AREN’T REQUIRED — SETBACKS AREN’T REQUIRED. BUT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, IT’S A JOHN HENRY HILL HOMES AND DHA PROPERTY. THEY — WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL. WE NEEDED TO — A LAND LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED. THE REASONS WHY WE’RE HERE IS BECAUSE THE SITE CONSTWRAINTS ARE PREVENTS — CONSTRAINTS ARE PREVENTING US FROM PROVIDING THE REQUIRED BUFFER FOR THE SITE. AND THE REASONS WHY IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE — AT THE LAYOUT, YOU SEE THE CS GOING THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AND THREE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IS A COMBINED SEWER, COMING FROM THE DIRECT — FROM THE WEST, IS THE 11-FOOT DIAMETER LICK BRANCH SEWER. COMING FROM THE SOUTH IS THE NINE-FOOT DIAMETER KERRIGAN TUNNEL. COMING FROM THE NORTH IS A 30 SPHCH DIAMETER COMBINED SEWER, ALL MEETING UNDERNEATH THE PHARMACY AND TRAVELING EAST TOWARDS THE RIVER.

AS A 14-FOOT DIAMETER SEWER. WE’VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH METRO PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY ARE AMENABLE TO CONSTRUCTING ABOVE THE SEWER, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING MEANS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE. THE APPROXIMATELY 20% OF OUR FLOOR AREA IS TAKEN UP BY SEWER, WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE MAKING THE FOOTPRINT WORK. IN ADDITION, WE HAD THE FORMAL LOCATION — FORMER LOCATION OF 15th AVENUE SOUTH IS LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY. ONE OF METRO’S REQUIREMENTS ON THE SEWER IS TO PROVIDE 21 FEET OF VERTICAL CLEARANCE ABOVE THE 30 FOOT ACCESS.

30-FOOT SEWER EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT WOULD CONSTRAIN THE TRAVEL PATH OF TH% PARKING GARAGE. WE’VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STEPHEN ABOUT THE PROJECT AND WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE ANY LANDSCAPE, ANY KIND OF BUFFER THAT WE CAN PROVIDE. ALONG THE BACK EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE TWO AND A HALF FIGHT. WE INTEND TO PLANT SHRUBBERY AND/OR A FENCE OR WALL TO — TO BLOCK ALL THE — TO SCREEN THE CARS AND ANY KIND OF EQUIPMENT UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WE STILL HAVE — LOOKING TO PROVIDE THE STANDARD BUFFER FOR THAT. WE HAVE OVER 30 FEET AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION, WE’VE CONTACTED THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, MDHA, AND HAVE ASKED THEM FOR PERMISSION FOR US TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, AND MAINTAIN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFERING ON — BETWEEN THE EXISTING CMU WALL AND OUR BUILDING.

ON THE NORTH SITE OF THE PROPERTY — NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, OVER 10 YEARS AGO, THEY CREATED A CLASS D BUFFER. THEY BUILT A 30 FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA WITH THE TREES AND THE CMU WALL WHICH YOU CAN SEE, WHICH IS EIGHT-FOOT TALL WALL WITH A DECORATIVE IRON FENCE ON TOP OF IT. AND THAT’S IN GREAT CONDITION. IT LOOKS GOOD. WE ASKED THEM IF THEY’D BE AMENABLE TO ALLOWING US TO PLANT AND MAINTAIN A VEGETATION BETWEEN IT. AND HAVING — THEY HAVEN’T GOT BACK WITH US. THEY NEED SOME MORE TIME TO DISCUSS INTERNALLY TO SEE IF THEY’D LIKE TO DO THAT. WE WILL BE PROVIDING THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING TO MAINTAIN THE — TO PROVIDE BUFFERING AND ALSO TO KIND OF KEEP THE SAME — SAME INTENT OF SCREENING BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. WE’LL ALSO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TREE DENSITY ON THE SITE. WE DON’T HAVE ANY TROUBLE MEETING THE TREE DENSITY.

WE JUST — OUR PROBLEM IS NAMELY THE SEWER NOT BEING ABLE TO PUT COLUMNS AND PUT LOADS ON TOP OF THE SEWER. THAT’S BEEN OUR MAIN STRUGGLE ON THE GEOMETRY. ON IF BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY — ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXISTING CM MA WALL, THAT WOULD PROVIDE ANOTHER 7 1/2 FEET OF BUFFER IF THEY ALLOW US TO PLANT WITHIN THAT AREA. THAT’S ALL I HAVE FOR — DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, ALEX, TO ADD? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND I GUESS THAT WE CAN ASK OUR FORECASTER WHAT — >> — FORESTER.

>> I WROTE A NOTE TO JOHN MICHAEL BUT I THINK THIS HAS — THIS IS LIMITING TO WHAT THEY CAN DO ON THIS SITE AND I’M — AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION, I WAS OKAY WITH THIS BUFFER VARIANCE. THEY STILL WILL BE MEETING TREE DENSITY. THEY’RE GOING TO PLANT WHAT THEY CAN. THEY’LL STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE CORRECT NUMBER OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE DAY AND AS LONG AS THEY PUT A FENCE OR A WALL BACK THERE, WITH THE BUFFER — WHERE THE BUFFER NORMALLY WOULD BE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS GOING FORWARD.

>> THEY HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER WALL — >> IT WOULD BE A PART OF THE BUFFER. THAT’S A PORTION OF THE BUFFER. >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY A WALL. >> THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL FENCE ON THEIR PROPERTY. >> OKAY. SO THERE’S TWO FENCES. >> RIGHT. >> THAT’S A LOT OF FENCE. >> UNLESS WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT AND WE COULD JUST DO SOME PRETTY INTENSE SHRUB PLANTING THROUGH THERE WHICH MAY LOOK BETTER. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO GO — TO DO THAT. >> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT — EXCUSE ME. MY NAME IS ALEX. I’M WITH 3H GROUP. >> YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE RED LIGHT IS ON. THERE YOU GO. >> SORRY. I’LL REPEAT THAT. MY NAME IS ALEX GRACE. I’M WITH THROORKS H GROUP HOTEL, THE CHATTANOOGA-BASED DEVELOPER. IF I COULD SPEAK TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING, THE FIRST THREE LEVELS WILL BE A PARKING GARAGE AND THEN THE HOTEL STRUCTURE ITSELF WILL BE FIVE STORIES AND THAT WILL FRONT CHARLOTTE AVENUE.

AND SO ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING, WE PROPOSE TO ENCLOSE THAT GARAGE. SO THAT GARAGE WILL BECOME A WALL AT OUR PROPERTY LINE. SO I WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THEN OF COURSE, THERE’S THE OTHER WALL THAT’S APPROXIMATELY PLUS OR MINUS 7 1/2 FEET OFF OUR PROPERTY LINE. SO IT WILL BE FOR THE SECOND WALL THERE. AND ONE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT, THAT WITH THE 20 FOOT OVERHEAD EASEMENT TO THE NORTH, THAT’S A GRASS AREA. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THERE TO THE NORTH, THE BUILDING SET BACK, SO THERE’S ALREADY AN EXTENSIVE LAND SCRAPE GREEN ALREADY AREA IN PLACE. AND SO — LANDSCAPE GREEN AREA ALREADY IN PLACE. SO I FEEL WE’LL MEET THE INTENT AND HAVE THAT THERE.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PARKING GARAGE WOULD ACT AS OUR WALL SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE A WALL AND A WALL. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN — IS THAT IN OUR ABILITY TODAY? >> YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, ABSOLUTELY, IF THAT’S THE QUESTION. >> THE QUESTION BEING THE WALL? EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE? ABSOLUTELY, IT’S PART OF THE BUFFER. >> I GUESS A QUESTION IS THAT AN IMPORTANT PART TO YOU? I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU ALL THINK — WHOORKS — >> I AGREE. I DON’T THINK A FENCE OR A WALL REALLY ACCOMPLISHES MUCH, ESPECIALLY IF THE PARKING GARAGE IS RIGHT THERE. >> BECAUSE WE’VE HAD CASES WHERE WE’VE HAD — YOU KNOW, A CEMENT BLOCK BUILDING THAT HAD TO HAVE A 10-FOOT OR SIX-FOOT WALL BEHIND IT AND THE NEIGHBORS WANTED A WOODEN FENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO YOU KNOW, WE DON’T HAVE NEIGHBORS HERE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINION. BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO BE AN AWFUL LOT OF WALL THAT — >> I AGREE. >> THAT SOMETHING — >> SO MY CONCERN WITH THE GARAGE WALL — ARE YOU TALKING A SOLID WALL FOR THE HIGHER THE GARAGE OR WILL IT BE OPEN PARTIALLY OPEN, COMPLETELY OPEN WITH CABLES? >> WE HAVEN’T DEFINEDDED THAT YET. — DEFINED THAT YET. BUT WE WOULD ESTHETICALLY ENCLOSE IT WHETHER IT BE A STUCCO OR SOME KIND OF ARCUL CLADDING. >> MY — ARCHITECTURAL CLADDING. >> MY CONCERN IS IF IT DOES HAVE TO BE OPEN FOR VENTILATION OR FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT IT NOT BE COMPLETELY OPEN WITH CABLES. YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE A PANEL SO THAT THE NEIGHBORS AREN’T GETTING HEADLIGHTS SHINED IN TO THEIR PROPERTY AS CARS GO THROUGH THE GARAGE OR PARK IN THE GARAGE, IS MY CONCERN. BUT IF IT’S SOLID, THAT’S — THE MATERIAL IS IMMATERIAL TO ME. I’M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT LIGHT SPILLAGE FROM THE GARAGE. >> NO, CERTAINLY WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. WE’VE DESIGNED PARKING STRUCTURES OF THAT NATURE WHERE WE DO WANT TO KEEP THE VENTLATION REQUIREMENT. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT CODE IS, BUT IT’S LIKE 25%.

THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SCREENS OR PERFORATED METAL PANELS AND STUFF. BUT IT’S A MARRIOTT BRANDED HOTEL AND ARCHITECTURALLY WE WANT IT TO BE PLEASING FOR EVERYBODY, WHETHER IT BE FAITHING THE REAR OR THE STREET. >> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE AERIAL PICTURE? >> SURE. THAT’S OKAY. >> ONE ADDITIONAL THING I WANTED TO ADD IF I MAY. THE METRO THOROUGHFARE PLAN WAS ALSO CONSULTED, SO THERE’S AN EXTRA FIVE FEET, WHICH ALSO LIMITED — LIMITS OUR FOOTPRINT. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO DEAL WITH.

BUT WE JUST — JUST HAS AN FYI, THAT’S ANOTHER LIMITING FACTOR. >> IS THERE OPPOSITION? ARE YOU ALL IN OPPOSITION? OR WITH THE APPELLANT? WITH THE APPELLANT? OKAY. >> IN THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL — AND THE PHARMACY LOT JUST LEFT OF THE PIN. >> SO HOW MUCH SPACE WOULD THERE BE BETWEEN THE CEMENT WALL THAT YOU ALL WOULD BUILD AND THE FENCE THAT’S THERE? >> SEVEN — THERE’S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET BETWEEN THE WALL T EXISTING WALL AND THE PROPERTY LINE. AN ADDITIONAL FEET BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND OUR — >> AND THAT’S WHAT — >> RIGHT. >> BACK THE THE BACK OF YOUR BUILDING WILL BE SOLID. >> IT WILL. WE DISCUSSED THIS TODAY ALSO. IS THAT BETWEEN THE — BEING A NORTH FACE WALL, BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE BACK WALL, I’M NO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY SOMETHING COULD GROW THERE. BUT IT WOULD BE — IT WOULD HAVE A BETTER SHOT ON A DIFFERENT — AS FAR AS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE THERE, ON THE EAST SIDE, WILL BE A FULL VEGETATED AREA. THAT WOULD BE — THAT WOULD DO A LOT BETTER. WE DON’T HAVE A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PLANT ABOVE THE SEWER METRO WATER SERVICES, JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS OPEN FOR AN EVENT THAT THERE’S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE ANY KIND OF LANDSCAPING THAT’S PUT IN THERE. >> IS YOUR DUMPSTER IN THAT AREA? >> DUMPSTER WILL BE OVER — WILL ALSO BE OVER THERE, TOO. THAT HASN’T BEEN DECIDED — HASN’T BEEN SET A STONE YET. MY DISCUSSIONS WITH METRO WATER SERVICES ARE AS LONG AS YOU CAN MOVE THE DUMPSTER AND YOU CAN EVACUATE THE AREA, CARS CAN BE PARKED ON TOP OF IT. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO CLEAR 30-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR ACCESS WITH — AND THEN BE ABLE TO BRING IN A TRACK HOE AND EXCAVATE. IT WILL LIKELY BE OVER THERE ON THE RIGHT — KIND OF NEAR THE NOTCH OF THE BUILDING.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE THAT Y’ALL HAVE TO ADD? >> NO, JUST YOU KNOW, WAIT BE ON MDHA FOR — WAITING ON MDHA FOR THEIR FINAL — FOR FINAL SAY ON THE — ON THE PERMISSION TO PLANT IN THERE. I WOULDN’T WANT ANY APPROVALS CONTINGENT UPON THAT HAPPENING. FRANKLY, I THINK IT WOULD LOOK GREAT. OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE AN ASPHALT AREA BETWEEN OUR WALL AND AND THE BUILDING. BUT WE’RE AND I WILL IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, HOPING TO FIND OUT PRETTY SOON.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND HAVE DISCUSSION. >> I’M EXCITED TO SEE JACK HERE TODAY. I OFTEN EAT IN HIS RESTAURANT. AND IF HE’S HAPPY WITH THIS, I THINK PROBABLY WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH THIS. >> WE MAY ALL HAVE TO RECUSE OURSELVES — I WALK DOWN TO THE JOINT ON CHARLOTTE A LOT AND I THOUGHT, I CAN’T SHOW MY FACE FOR A WHILE IF I’M AGAINST IT. >> I GO WAY OUT OF MY WAY TO GO TO THAT ONE, BECAUSE IT’S EASY PARKING. IT’S GREAT LOCATION. AND I’MTICLED THAT WE’RE GET — I’M TICKLED THAT WE’RE GETTING A HOTEL OF THAT CALIBER THAT CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN.

>> ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT ABOUT — YOU KNOW, JUST ONE OF THESE WALLS THAT’S TOO MUCH WALL AND MY THOUGHTS ON IT RIGHT NOW ARE THAT IT’S A LITTLE — A LITTLE TOO PRELIMINARY TO JUST HEY, LET’S TAKE OUT THE CMU WALL, TOO. I THINK THEY CERTAINLY CAN WORK WITH URBAN FORESTER AND COME BACK TO US AND SAY WE HAVE A REVISED PLAN. BUT IN ORDER TO GET — GO IN AND TO HAVE THE PROJECT — AND THEY DIDN’T ASK FOR THAT TODAY. SO IT JUST — WHEN THEY’RE PRESENTING IT, IT GOT RAISED AND I RAISED THAT. AND — BUT I DO THINK THAT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM THE YOU ARE URBAN FORESTER, THAT IT’S APPROPRIATE AND GIVEN THE REALLY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF HAVING THE CONFLUENCE OF SEWER LINES COME THROUGH, AND THE FACT THAT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY HAS THE CLASS D BUFFER ALREADY, TO ME I FELT LIKE IT WARRANTS A VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THAT BACKSIDE.

I THINK, DAVID, YOU TALKED ABOUT CONDITIONS OF BEING — YOU KNOW, HAVING A SOLID — A SOLID WALL IN THE PARKING GARAGE OR APPROPRIATE SOLID FITTING. THEY TESTIFIED TO. AND THAT MAY BE A CONDITION OF OF — OF — >> LIKE I SAID, MY CONCERN PRIMARILY WAS LIGHT SPILLAGE FROM THE GARAGE ON TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND MOSTLY — I MEAN, IT’S PRETTY STANDARD IN A GARAGE TO HAVE A SOLID WALL. IT’S USUALLY IF IT’S NOT SOLID, IT’S A FINANCIAL CONCERN. THEY’LL USE CABLES FOR THE BARRIER. BUT I DON’T — I’M HOPING THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. >> AND I THINK AS FAIR ENOUGH TO SAY, BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BUFFER IS — TO PROVIDE SOME — SO I DON’T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN INAPPROPRIATE CONDITION TO SAY THAT IT HAS TO HAVE A LIGHT BARRIER IN THE OPEN SPACE — AVOID LIGHTS.

BUT ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR EMOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND — IT’S. >> IT’S A VARIANCE. >> I’M SORRY. THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE — I’M STILL ON THE LAST CASE — AND THE HARDSHIP BEING THE UNIQUE AND EXTRAORDINARILY UNIQUE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE OF, PARTICULARLY THE SEWER EVENTS. I THINK THAT’S THE MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I’LL BE GLAD TO SECOND IT. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT PASSES 5-0. >> THANKS. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES TODAY’S MEETING. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON THURSDAY, MARCH 2. .

As found on Youtube

Comments are closed.