Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals

Agenda Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals Thursdayn October 26, 2017 Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals - 5:30 p.m. DR. J. DEOTHA MALONE COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL Call to Order a Invocation a Pledge of Allegiance a Roll CalI a Minutes: September 28,2017 Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals Regular Meeting 1 GMBZA RESOLUTION NO. 2OI7.O9 B-5576-17 CARMACK, RONALD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CARMACK, RONALD 8., SR. THE OWNER AND APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3-LI-NIT MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING USE AT 237 HAWKINS AVENUE, PER SECTION 06.0s.020.0.c oF THE GALLATIN ZONING ORDINANCE, ON A 0.845 (+/-) ACRE LOT ZONED R-15 MEDIUM DENISTY RESIDENTIAL. 2. GMBZA RESOLUTION NO. 2OI7.IO B-6407-t7 MURPHY, RICK & LINDA - VARIANCE GREENLID DESIGNN LLC PUBLIC HEARING THE OWNER AND APPLICANT REQUEST A VAzuANCE FROM SECTION 06.030.030A, oF THE GALLATIN ZONING ORDINANCE OF TEN PERCENT QA%) TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT TO ALLOV/ THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON A 0.43 ACRE LOT, ZONED R4O-LOV/ DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 940 LAKESHORE DRIVE (TAX MAp PARCEL t36DtN008.00), IN THE LEELAND HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. J. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURN  'oRtGfruA[' MINUTES OF THE GALLATIN MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING September 28,2017 Members Present StaffPresent Jimmy Moore, Chair William McCord, Director of Planning John Puryear, Vice Chair Sharon Burton, Planner I Homer Vaughn, Secretary Jeanne Gregory Absent Others Present None Applicants The Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals met in a regular meeting on Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Dr. J. Deotha Malone Council Chambers of Gallatin City Hall. Mr. Jimmy Moore, Chair, called the meeting to order. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. Chair Moore led the opening prayer and Mr. Vaughn led the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Burton called roll Approve Prior Minutes ChairMoorepresentedminutesfromthe July27,2017 andtheAugust3l,20lT MunicipalBoard of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. Puryear asked that the minutes be presented separately, since he did not attend the July 27,2017 meeting. Chair Moore presented the minutes from the July 27,2017 meeting for approval. Ms. Gregory motioned to approve and Mr. Vaughn seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 ayes, I abstained (Mr. Puryear). Chair Moore presented the minutes from the August 31,2017 Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals meeting. Mr. Puryear suggested a correction to the minutes. Mr. Puryear motioned to approve. Mr. Vaughn seconded the motion and the motion to approve as corrected passed by unanimous vote. l tlT\/fEr7^ Resolution No )o 1 7-nq /Il<{7Á-1 1\ ('qrmqaL P^-ol.{ Conditional Use Per"rnif (-qrmqo7¿ - - - Ronald E.- Sr - Public H - The owner and aoolicant reouest annroval a Conditional Use Permit multi- section 06.05 Gallatin Tnninp Ordi on a 0.845 ftl-\ ac're lot zoned Rl5 - Density Residential. Ms. Sharon Burton, Planner I, said the request is for a Conditional Use Permit. The original zoning permitted two-family dwellings. This zoning was in place when the applicant purchased the home and the home was enlarged to include another dwelling unit for a mother-in-law and a daughter to live in the additional units. When the daughter moved out and the mother-in-law passed away, the applicant did not realize the zoning requirements changed and the multi-family dwelling was only permitted by Conditional Gallatin Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals Meeting Minutes 2 September 28,2017 Use Permit. The additional units are now rented and it came to the applicant's attention that the use of the third unit was not permiued; therefore, he applied for this Conditional Use Permit to become compliant with the zoning. Mr. Willian McCord, Director of Planning, said the conforming use became a non-conforming use in 1998 when the code was amended to remove two units as a permitted use in the R15 - Medium Density Residential zone district. In 2006, approval of a building permit application resulted in construction of a third unit. The concern is, although the structure meets the requirements for a multi-family dwelling, the number of units does not fit in with the neighborhood and may change the character of the neighborhood. Other residents in the neighborhood may want to change single family dwellings to multi-family dwellings. All requirements have been met for multi-family dwellings; however, staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on permitted uses allowed in the zone. Chair Moore opened public hearing. No one came forward to speak; therefore, Chair Moore closed.public comment. Mr. Ronald E. Carmack, Sr., applicant, said when the home was purchased in 2000, an apartment was already constructed. In 2006 all permits were acquired to create the additional unit and all inspections were completed. No one from the City said the additional unit is not permitted. When the applicant considered selling the home, the realtor asked if the home was appropriately zoned. That is when the applicant called the City and discovered that the house was not in compliance. Ms. Burton said there is only one meter for all units. Mr. Puryear said if the pipes are shared, a separate meter could not be installed. Mr. Carmack said one apartment has its own water, but the second apartment is shared with the main house The units have been rented for several years. Ms. Elizabeth Carmack said there are separate yards and parking. The applicants lives in the main house. Mr. Puryear said he is concerned that this sets a precedent for the neighborhood. Two units are now a non- conforming use and can continue. The third unit is the issue. Mr. McCord said the Tennessee State Statute was changed to allow for elderly persons or children to live in a separate unit on the same lot; however, when that family member moves out or dies, the unit cannot be rented. Ms. Gregory asked how the home is taxed. Mr. Carmack said he does not know how the home is assessed but it is listed with three addresses. When application was made for the building permit, it was not listed as a mother-in-law suite. Ms. Burton said the Conditional Use Permit would not apply for the neighborhood, only this residence, and each property owner would have to come to the Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Gallatin Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals Meeting Minutes 3 September 28,2017 Mr. Puryear asked if each unit is separate. Mr. Carmack said one unit is in the basement and the upstairs is the owner's residence. The third unit is a part of the basement with an addition. There is no access to the upstairs from the basement units. Mr. Puryear asked if the two basement units could be combined as one. Mr. Carmack said the units are totally separate. A floor plan was distributed to the Board members showing the three units. Mr. Puryear suggested the current owner be allowed to rent the two units downstairs; however, if the property is sold, the house must become a two unit dwelling, combining the two units in the basement. Mr. Carmack said his home has two lots which is unusual for the neighborhood. His lot is 38,000 square feet. Mr. McCord said there are several lots in the neighborhood that meet the square footage requirement. Mr. Puryear suggested the applicant look into separate meters forthe three units. The separate meters would create three units. Ms. Gregory said she does not believe the City Attorney's legal opinion will help the applicant. Mr. McCord said if the City Attorney determines it is legal to allow this for the current owner only, the Conditional Use Permit may be approved. Mr. Puryear motioned to defer Resolution 2017-09 pending the City Attorney's legal opinion to extend the Conditional Use Permit to the current owner only. Ms. Gregory seconded the motion and the motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Puryear added that Mr. Carmack should not investigate segregation of the water meters. Mr. Carmack asked if the Conditional Use Permit is not approved, would he have time to allow the tenant to move. Mr. Vaughn is concerned about fire codes for a three (3) unit complex. Mr. McCord said the fire codes are becoming more rigid. 2. Other Business Mr. McCord said the Murphy Residence on Lakeshore Drive will come before the Board next month because the building plan submitted exceeds the approved floor area. Mr. McCord said there will be a County wide training session in November 3. Adjourn There being no further business to discuss, Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Gallatin Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals Meeting Minutes 4 September 28,2017 Respectfully submitted: Marianne Mudrak, Board Secretary Approved Jimmy Moore, Chair Homer Vaughn, Secretary  Gatlatin *"rrt.rnuf"tlilÍ zoninsAp peats "t Thursday, September 28, 2017 Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals - 5:30 p.m. DR. J. DEOTHA MALONE COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL Call to Order a Invocation a Pledge of Allegiance a Roll Call a Minutes: July 27,2017 and August 31,2017 Gallatin ñIunicipal Board of ZoningAppeals ùIeeting ,l lirr.,'i,]it .,.,rì r',(,'l:1:l).r r/r, I GMBZA RESOLUTION NO. 2OI7.O9 B-5576-17 CARMACK, RONALD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CARMACK, RONALD 8., SR. ) PUBLIC HEARING THE OWNER AND APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A THREE (3) TJNIT, MULTI-FAMILY DV/ELLING USE AT 237 HAWKINS AVENUE, PER SECTION 06.05.020.C OF THE GALLATTN ZONING ORDINANCE, ON A 0.845 (+/-) ACRE LOT ZONED R15 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESTDENTTAL (S.B.E. TAX MAp 126N/J/031.00). 2. OTHER BUSINESS 3. MOVE TO ADJOURN #HffifßfrA  ITËM MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals FROM Sharon Burton, Project Manager DATE: October 26,2017 SUBJ: Carmack C.U.P. - City Attorney Response On Thursday, September 28, 2017, the GMBZA met to consider a Conditional Use Permit for an existing Multi-Family Dwelling, located at237 Hawkins Avenue. At that meeting, the GMBZA requested that the Planning Department ask the City Attorney if approving the Conditional Use Permit for just the current owners of the property is legally applicable. A Request for Legal Services was submitted to the City Attorney's Office on October 5,2017. On October 10,2017, the City Attorney's Office responded to the Planning Office. The legal opinion requires the Board of Zoning Appeals to rescind the original motion, then make a valid motion regarding approving the Conditional Use Permit or denying the permit along with listing their reasoning for the decision. The GallatinZoning Ordinance, Section 15.03.102. does specify that the Board of Zoning Appeals may place restrictions on granting a Conditional Use Permit such as establishing expiration dates: 15.03.102 Expiration of a Conditional Use Permit The Board may establish expiration dates for any Conditional Use Permit as a condition of permit approval and may consider extending a Conditional Use Permit or removing an expiration date of any previously approved Conditional Use permit. The original staff report and recommendation and City Attorney's Opinion are attached to this memo. Attachments: Copy of Staff Report of September 28,2017 (no attachments) Resolution No. 2017-09 Request for Legal Services and Attorney Response 132 WEST MAIN STREET GALLATTN, TENNESSEE 37066 (615) 451-5796 FAX (615) 452-0348  ITEM 1 'f#Joffii',f'f* PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Carmack Multi-family Conditional Use Permit Request 237 Hawkins Avenue; (File #8-3564-17) Date: September 28, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST: THE OWNER AND APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING USE AT 237 HAV/KINS AVENUE, PER SECTION O6.O5.O2O.C OF THE GALLATIN ZONING ORDINANCE, ON A 0.845 (+/-) ACRE LOT ZONED R-15 MEDIUM DENSrry RESIDENTIAL (S.B.E. TAX MAp #r26NlJl03l.00). OWITIER: RONALD AND ELIZABETH CARMACK APPLICANT: RONALD AND ELIZABETH CARMACK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL OF GMBZA RESOLUTION 2017-09 STAFF CONTACT: SHARON BURTON NIBZAMEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2OI7 PROJECT OVERVIEW: The owner and applicant request approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 3-unit Multi- family Dwelling use, per Section 06.05.020.C. of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance, on a 0.845 (+/-) acre lot, zoned R15, Medium Density Residential, located at 237 Hawkins Avenue (S.B.E. Tax Map #126N1J1031.00) (Attachment l-L and Attachment 1-2). The existing structure was built in 1,965 as a Single-family Detached Dwellingo on 2-ll2 lots of the Halewood Estates Subdivision (P.8. 1, Page 262). The property has been in use as a Multi-family Dwelling, since 2007. A Multi-family Dwelling use requires a Conditional Use Permit in the RlS zone district. The surrounding property owners were notified by mail about the Conditional Use Permit request and a Public Hearing shall be held on the item at the meeting. Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit request, with the conditions listed in the GMBZA Resolution No. 2017-09, since the project does not meet the General Requirements (Attachment 1-3), nor the Special Conditions for the Multi-family Dwelling use. (Attachment 1-4). Carmack, Multi-fomily Conditional Use Permit Request File #8-5576-17 September 28, 2017 cg.fl Fe, yr{rfr CASE BACKGROUND' IgT$,t*EÀrugg " Previous Approvøls The residence at 237 Hawkins Avenue, was constructed in 1965 as a Single-Family Detached Dwelling (l-story ranch style) with a basement and a garage as part of the basement. The parcel was part of the Halewood Estates subdivision. In May, 1979, the City of Gallatin instituted zoning. According to the Ordinance adopted at the time, Dwelling Two-Family Detached was a permitted use in the R15 zone district. Multi-family Dwelling was a Conditional Use. In 1998, the City adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance. This Ordinance did not list Two-Family Dwelling as a Permitted Use; therefore, the new code made the Two-Family Dwelling a nonconforming use. A section of the Ordinance was devoted to Provisions Governing Non-Conforming Uses and Non- Complying Buildings or Other Structures (Article 14). Multi-family dwellings; are still listed as a Conditional Use. The current owner acquired the property in October, 2000. At the time, a second dwelling unit (840 square feet), existed in a portion of the building, and was being used by the owners as rental property. The nedcurrent owners continued this arrangement until 200612007, when they constructed an addition to the building, additional third dwelling unit. Thus, the structure became a multi-family dwelling, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, rather than two-family. There is no record of an owner applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Acccording to the applicant, family members occupied the two apartments, a daughter and a mother-in-law. The mother-in-law lived in one of the apartments until her death in20l1. The daughter occupied the other unit until 2014. The applicant has rented the apartments, for extra income, since each became vacant. DISCUSSION: Anølysß Until recently, the owner was not aware that his property use was a non-conforming use. The owner and applicant is now requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 3-unit Multi-Family Dwelling to comply with the ZoningOrdinance so that he can continue its use. According to the Zoning Ordinance, there are several general criteria that must be met before being granted a Conditional Use Permit. The General Requirements are: Zoning Requirement: A. Is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Applicant Response: The current structure has been in existence since 1965. It has had two dwelling units in use since at least before 2000. There are no conditions associated with the property that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. Zoning Requirement: B. Will not adversely affect other property in the area in which it is located. Applicønt Response: There are no conditions associated with the property that could adversely affect other property in the area. 2 Carmack, Multi-family Conditional Use Permit Request File #B-55r0-ttçgpy 28, 2017 çf,t:,fq&ñr ,tiF$f;lrfÅicl?e Staff remarks: The owner indicates that the residence has been functioning as a 3-unit multi- family development without a conditional use permit, for some time; however separate utility meters have not been used at the site, although there are two (2) mailboxes. As proposed, granting the conditional use permit for a multi-family use would not visually impact the overall design of the structure and would continue to match other structures in the neighborhood. However, allowing three (3) units on the lot would change the character of the neighborhood. The property is well-maintained, but permitting three units on the property simply because the lot contains a greater area than the minimum required by the Zoning Code does not fit with the development characteristics of the neighborhood. Even the non-conforming two-unit structure is unusual for the immediate area. Many of the other homes in the neighborhood are built on a combination of one or more lots which also may qualify for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to establish more than one unit per lot. This could set a precedent and significantly disrupt the established development pattern of the neighborhood and should be discouraged. Zoning Requirement: C. Is within the provisions of "Conditional Uses" as set forth in this Ordinance. Applicant Response: The property is zoned Rl5. The Rl5 Zoning, Section 06.05.020.C. lists Multi-Family as a Conditional Use. Staff Remarks: Residences in the Rl5 zone must comply with standards listed in Sec. 15.06.080. The building consists of a former single-family residence divided into three separate units, most as the result of additions made to the house. No CUP was obtained when the third unit was added, even though the City issued permits. It is unknown how the request for the third unit was presented but the proper procedure would have been to obtain a CUP for multi-family use before issuing a building permit for the third unit. A cursory review of other uses in the immediate neighborhood indicates that it appears all other homes in the immediate vicinity are single-family homes and do not contain even two units as was previously permitted under a previous code. Authorizing a third unit in an area surrounded by single-family homes would be highly irregular unless the lot or property were adjacent to other multi-family uses or possibly non-residential uses. The applicant owns 2 andT¿ lots. This would indicated that at least two units should be permitted if a single family home was placed on each lot. However, a third unit should not be permitted or considered unless at least three complete lots were provided. The lot is 38,000 square feet. Rl5 requires a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. This property complies with all applicable provisions of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance. The Residential-Rl5 zone district requires a 15,000 square foot lot. This lot is 38,000 (+/-) square feet. The zone district also states that no dwelling unit shall be permitted on a zone lot with a total development area of 11,250 square feet per dwelling unit. With a 38,000 (+/-) sq. ft. lot, up to three (3) units could be permitted. Zoning Requirement 3 carmack, Mutti-famity conditionat (rse Permit Request Fite #8-552ó 1tlfilgfi*l*ffiffå r 28, 2017 D. Conforms to all applicable provisions-of this Ordinance for the district in which it is to be located and is necessary for public convenience in that location. Applicant Response The proposed use conforms to the Residential-15 provisions as follows: Resídentìøl - RIS Zoníng Ordínønce Requirements The R15 Zoning District requires that lots within the district have a minimum Lot Area of 15,000 square feet. The property at237 Hawkins is a corner lot and has approximately 38,600 square feet of lot area. The current/main residence has I,536 (+/-) square feet. The lower level/basement has the same amount. An additional T15 (+/-) square feet was added in2006, for a total living area of 2,251 (+l-) square feet of living area on the lower level.. The residence now has total living space of 3,787 (+l-) square feet. The residence meets all the requirements of the R15 district. The Rl5 requires a minimum development area of 11,250 square feet per dwelling unit. The calculation for a 38,600 square foot lot shows that this lot would be conforming with 3.43 dwelling units. The Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for the R15 is 0.24. With the current square footage calculations, this lot has an F.A.R. of 0.10. The Maximum Lot Coverage permitted in the Rl5 zone district is35Yo. This calculates to 13,510. The current use has a lot coverage of 6Yo. The Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is showing and has stated that there is a minimum of 6 parking spaces available on the property. The applicant needs to mark one of the spaces as handicapped. Special Conditíonsfor Multí-family Dwelling and Mobíle Home Park Activities Special Conditions for Multi-family Dwelling and Mobile Home Park Activities - In addition to the standards contained in this Ordinance, for these type developments, the Board of Appeals shall specifically find that there will be no adverse impact upon adjoining properties or the neighborhood in which such use is proposed. In making this finding, the Board shall consider the effect upon traffic congestion, overcrowding of schools, availability of necessary public utilities, and suitability of the site for the use, and such other factors as the Board may deem necessary. The existing multi-family use has been in existence for approximately 9-10 years. Staff has no record of complaints lodged against the owner due to the use as a multi-family dwelling. The proposed use should not significantly impact the traffic congestion since there will only be the three (3) dwelling units, or possibly a maximum of 6 cars (4 additional to the Single-Family Dwelling). This is essentially the same trip generation if individual houses were constructed on the lots. 4 Carmack, Multi-family Conditional Use Permit Request File #B-5 576-17 September 28, 2017 t,*fiu'of,ü¡tTon** The use should not adversely affect schools. At least one of the units is large enough to accommodate a large family. The site has all utilities available. However, the owner has only one connection for the entire site, of electric, gas, water, etc. (Attachment 1-7) This may be one reason that the building addition permit was granted in 200512006. Since no additional meter was applied, the Building Department may have expected that the addition was for an existing unit. The additional dwelling units are not visible from Hawkins Ave., but are visible from Spencer Ave. One mailbox is placed along 237 Hawkins Avenue and one on the Spencer Ave, driveway (2378). (Attachment l-5 -A and B) Signs No signs are shown for the Multi-family Dwelling. Ot h er D ep artme ntal C omme nts No other departments provided any review comments on the Conditional Use Permit request. Fíndings The applicant's responses addressing the Special Conditions, pertaining to the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Dwelling, are included in Attachment l-6. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board deny GMBZA Resolution No. 2017-09. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1-1 Location Map Attachment l-2 Aerial Location Map Attachment 1-3 General Requirements for Conditional Use Permit Attachment l-4 Specific Standards for Residential Activities Attachment 1-5-A Photo of property from Hawkins Avenue Attachment 1-5-B Photo of property from Spencer Avenue Attachment l-6 Applicant's response to Conditions Attachment l-7 Utitity Location Map of Property 5  tüf?y F[!, T0üR tf{f,t,ïf'rÅil0il GMBZA Resolution No. 2017-09 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3.UNIT MULTI. FAMILY RESTDENTIAL USE 0.845 (+/-) ACRE, ZONED R-15 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 237 HAWKINS AVENUE (S.B.E. TAX MAp #t26N I J 1031.00). (B-ss76-1 7) WHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS considered the Conditional Use Permit request for a 3-unit Multi-family Residential Use, located at237 Hawkins Avenue, submitted by the applicant, Ronald Carmack, owner, at a regular meeting on September 28,2017; and WHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS reviewed the application materials and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, the analysis, findings and recommendations presented by City Staff and in the Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report and evidence and testimony presented during the meeting, and held a public hearing as required by Article 15, Section 15.06.020 G.Z.O.; and WHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS is required in its deliberations, pursuant to Gallatin Zoning Ordinance Section 15.04.028.F, to indicate the specific section of the Zoning Ordinance of Gallatin, Tennessee under which the permit is being considered and state specific findings and any special conditions imposed in granting a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS' the Section 06.05.020.C of the Zoning Ordinance of Gallatin, Tennessee classifies Multi-family use as a Conditional Use in R-15 Medium Density Residential zone district and; \ilHEREAS, the use complies with the General Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit as described in Section 15.06.040 and the Special Conditions for a Multi-family Dwelling use as a Residential Activity as described in Section 15.06.080.4. NO\ry, THEREFOREO BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GALLATIN MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS in its deliberations finds that the applicant meets the Standards for a Conditional Use set forth in Gallatin Zoning Ordinance Section 15.06 as follows: Section 1. The Gallatin Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals in its deliberations finds that the proposed use and plan of the development meets the General Requirements set forth in Gallatin Zoning Ordinance $ 15.06.040 as follows: A. The use is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. B. The use will not adversely affect other properties in the area in which it is located. C. The use is within the provisions of "Conditional Uses" as set forth in this Ordinance.  D. The use conforms to all applicable provisions of this Ordinance for the R- 15 Medium Density Residential district and is necessary for public convenience in that location. Section c0PT ri, Y0üR 2. The Gallatin Municipal Board of ZoningAppeals in its deliberf$Þ$fl[*,if ltfl{ finds that the proposed use and plan of development meets the Special Conditions for Multi-family Dwelling Activities set forth in Gallatin Zoning Ordinance Section 15.06.080.4. as follows: 1 . The location of such facility has availability of necessary public utilities. 2. All of the bulk regulations of the R-15 zone district shall apply to the property and are depicted in the site plan. 3. The location of such facility will not materially or significantly increase trafhc on sunounding streets. 4. The location of such facility does not create an adverse effect of the surrounding properties. 5. The location of such facility shall not contribute to the overcrowding of schools. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF GALLATINO TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS approves a Conditional Use Permit request for a 3-unit Multi-family Residential Use at 237 Hawkins Avenue (Tax Map 126N, Group J, Parcel 031.00) with the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be consistent with the plan submitted by Ronald Carmack, of 237 Hawkins Avenue, dated August30,20l7. 2. Provide one handicapped parking space. 3. Submit three (3) corrected and folded copies of the Conditional Use Permit plans showing the handicapped parking space to the Planning Department for review and approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS that this resolution shall take effect from and after its final passage, the public welfare requiring such. IT IS SO ORDERED. PRESENT AND VOTING AYE NAY: DATED: 0912812017 Jimmy Moore, Chair  Homer Vaughn, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM 'T[To[li*T8ü* Susan High-McAuley City Attorney  REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date: l0l05/2017 i"i'itri',H,. Department: Planning Requested by: William McCord Phone: x2066 Subject: MBZAMotion to approved CUP for a particular property owner Resolution: fI Ordinance: n Contract: n RFP/Q: n Legal Opinion: ffi Ethics Opinion: I Other: n Please indicate the nature of your request and the purpose of the contract or document to be reviewed: This request is for interpretation of a legality of the City (MBZA) to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for multi-family use in the R-15 Zoning District if the CUP is only allowed for a certain person (In this case to the current owners of the property.) R-l5 allows for mulit-family use if granted a CUP. The MBZA indicated that they do not want to approve the CUP if it is transferrable. One concern is that the City issued a buidling permit for an addition nearly 10 years ago; however the buidlign permit records were destroyed by the City. It is unclear if the permit was issued for a third unit (in violation of the zoning ordinance unless a CUP was approved) or if the intent was to issue a buidling permit for an addition to one of the two units that existed on the property at the time of the permit application. Given theMBZ[decision, should the case go back to the MBZAfor clarification of the motion or reconsideration? nDate response requested by: October l0 2017. List Attachments: RESPONSE BY CITY ATTO S OFFICE f]APPRO VED SUBJECT TO CIIANGES SHOWN ATTACHED NOTHER I]APPROVED AS TO FORM  C0FT F[r Y0llR li1l,î::"'l;ilili Attorney's Signature: Date: la, lJ lî  Lega I Se rvices Req u est C0PT F{.l, lt{Jr¿ lldf,üfit'Tr{if ü;{ CorrronoNAL usE PERMtT October tO,2Ot7 Question: Should the case go back to the MBZA for clarification of the motion or reconsideration when a motion was made to approve a conditional use permit pending confirmation from the City Attorney that the conditional use permit can be restricted to time- frame of current owner's ownership? Answer: Yes,neithertheapprovalnorthedenialoftheCUPwasbasedonaconditionrequiredtobe met under Gallatin Zoning Ordínance 15.06. lnstead, the stated condition for approval or denial was the requirement that the CUP run with the owner instead of the land. This condition is not legal and is not "necessary to comply with provisions set out in sections 15.06.040 through 15.06.090 to reduce or minimize the ¡njurious effect of such conditional use upon and ensure compatibility with surrounding property and to better carry out the general intent of this Ordinance." Facts: Homeowners of 237 Hawkins Avenue requested a conditional use permit from the MBZA on September 28,2017. The home is a multi-family dwelling with three (3) units/dwellings. tt was originally a duplex, but a third dwelling was added in 2006. The home is located in a district zoned R-15. It was originally zoned for duplexes, but it became nonconforming when the zoning changed in 1"998. The zoning change allowed for multi-family dwellings with a conditional use permit. Owners were not aware of the need for a conditional use permit until they considered selling their property. The owners presently have two renters residing in the second and third dwellings. Planning staff recommended the Board deny the request noting in their report the project did not meet the General Requirements or the Special Conditions for the Multi-family Dwelling use. After conducting a public hearing with only the owner present, the Board agreed to grant the conditional use permit upon the condition that the City Attorney confirmed that the permit would expire with the present owners. Under Gallatin Zoning Ordinance 15.06.040, a conditional use permit shall be granted provided the Board finds that it: A. ls so designed, located, and proposed to be operated so the health, safety and welfare will be protected; B. w¡ll not adversely affect other property in the area in which is located; C. ls within the provisions of the "Conditional Uses" as set forth in this Ordinance; and D. Conforms to all applicable provisions-of this ord¡nance for the district in which ¡t ¡s to be located and is necessary for public convenience in that location. ln addition, pursuant to Gallatin Zoning Ordinance 15.06.030(A) the Board shall find "there will be no adverse impact upon adjoining properties or the neighborhood in which such use is proposed." The ordinance lists facts to consider when making this determination such as traffic congestion, availability of public utilities, and suitability of the site for use.  c0?-y fsi: roün Itr0RMAil0lt The discretion granted to a board of zoning appeals in dealing with special except¡ons or conditional use permits is well settled: A board of adjustment may grant or deny a special permit solely based on the statutory author¡ty delegated by the zoning ordinance or by statute and subject to the limitations imposed thereby. lt is without power to grant a special permit not expressly authorized by the zoning ordinance; it is equally without power to deny a permit on grounds not expressly stated in the ordinance. 3 ANDERSON AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING S 21.19 (Kenneth H. Young, ed.,4th ed. L996). Conditional use permits are provided for in R-L5 zones and should be permitted if an applicant meets the conditions set forth in the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance. When a permit is denied, the Board should state what conditions were not met. ln the case at hand, the Board through its motion did not legitimately approve or deny the request from the applicants. The issue must go back before the Board. Once before the Board, according to Robert's Rules of Order,4th Edition, the Board will need to make a motion to rescind the previous motion and then make a valid motion to approve the request or approve the recommendation of staff to deny the request based on the stated conditions not met under the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance. Please advise the City Attorney's Office as to when this issue will be placed on the MBZA agenda. 2  ITEIH 2 GMBZA Resolution No. 2017-10 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 06.03.030.A., OF TEN PERCENT (t0%) TO PERMTT A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25% TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON A 0.43 ACRE LOT ZONED R40-LOW DENSITY RESTDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 940 LAKESHORE DRIVE, TAX MAp PARCEL (136D/A/008.00),IN THE LEELAND HETGHTS SUBDTVTSTON (MBZA FrLE# B-4651-17) \ilHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS considered the request for a variance of 0.10 (10%) from section 06.03.030.4., Maximum Lot Coverage, for a0.43 acre lot, zoned R4O-Low Density Residential, located at940 Lakeshore Drive, (Tax Map Parcel 136D1N008.00), in the Leeland Heights Subdivision (MBZA File# 8-6007-17) at its regular meeting on October 26,2017; and WHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS reviewed the application materials and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, the analysis, findings and recommendations presented by City Staff and in the Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Report, and evidence and testimony presented during the meeting; and \ilHEREAS, THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS is required in its deliberations, pursuant to the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance to indicate the specific requirement under which the variance is being considered and state specific findings and specifically identify the hardships warranting such action by the Board; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF GALLATIN' TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS makes the following findings pursuant to T.C.A. Section 13-7-206; Section 13-7-207(3); and Section 15.05.030 of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance: Section 1. The request for a variance of l0 percent (10%) from the Maximum Lot Coverage, per Section 06.03.030 A. of the City of Gallatin Zoning Ordinance, for Tax Map Parcel 136D1N008.00. at 940 Lakeshore Drive, meets all nine (9) of the Standards for Granting a Variance as described in the body of the Staff Report and as set forth in Gallatin ZoningOrdinance, Section 15.05.030: A. The particular physical surroundings, shape, size, and topographic conditions of the specific property results in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvcnicncc, if thc strict application of this Ordinance were canied out because the lot is only 18, 865 sq.ft.and now contains a house containing 3,568 sq. ft, and additional structures which result in a maximum lot coverage of 23.7o/o;  ITEM 2 B. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same district,since nearly all other properties in the subdivision contain lot areas compliant with the established R40 zoning; C. The variance will not authorize activities in a zone district other than those permitted by this Ordinance, since the addition to the house will be for residential or permitted accessory uses; D. Financial returns is not the basis for granting the variance; E. The alleged difficulty or hardship was not created by any person having an interest in the property after the effective date of this Ordinance, since the existing structure was constructed before purchase by the owners and before establishment of the R-40 zoning; F. Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, since the property will be used for residential pulposes and most. homes in the immediate neighborhood contain lot area coverage and a floor area coverage larger than the applicants' house with the proposed addition; G. The variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure to accommodate user needs and provide for a hallway and additional bedroom; and H. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area in which the property is located. I. The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the area, since the addition will be interior to authorized and approved building setback lines. Section 2. Action - The Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves: a variance from Section 06.03.030.A., for a 0.10 (10%) increase above the l5Yo Maximum Lot coverage, for property located at 940 Lakeshore Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF GALLATIN, TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS that this resolution shall take effect from and after its final passage, the public welfare requiring such. IT IS SO ORDERED. PRESENT AND VOTING AYE NAY: DATED: 0813112017  lTEil 2 Jimmy Moore, Chair Homer Vaughn, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: SUSAN HIGH-MCAULEY CITY ATTORNEY  ITEM 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 940 Lakeshore Drive - Variance Request-B.-6007-17 Located on Lakeshore Drive, South of Nashville Pike Date: October 2612017 REQUEST: THE OWNER AND APPLICANT RI,QUEST A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 06.030.0304, oF THE GALLATIN ZONTNG ORDTNANCE OF TEN PERCENT (10%) TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON A 0.43 ACRE LOT, ZONED R4O-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 940 LAKESHORE DRrVE (TAX MAP PARCEL 136D/A/008.00),IN THE LEELAND HEIGHTS suBDrvrsroN (MBZA FrLE# B.6007 -17) OWNER: RICK AND LINDA MURPHY APPLICANT: ANDY LEATH, GREENLID DESIGN,LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: GMBZA RESOLUTION NO. 2OT7-IO STAFF CONTACT: SHARON BURTON M'B.ZA MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26,20T7 PROPERTY OWRWEW: The owner and applicant request a variance of of ten percent (10%) to permit a Maximum Lot coverage of twenty-five percent (25o/o), an additional four percent,, 4o/o, to the approved Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow the construction of an addition to the existing structure. The Gallatin Zoning Ordinance, Section 06.030.0304. permits fïfteen percent (15%) lot coverage in the R4O-Low Density Residential zone district. The 0.43 acre lot is zoned R40-Low Density Residential and is located at 940 Lakeshore Drive, (Tax Map Parcel 136D/A/008.00), in the Leeland Heights Subdivision. (Attachment 2-l and Attachment 2-2) Dwelling One-Family Detached is a permitted use in the R40 zone district. CASE BACKGROUND: Property Hßtory and Previous Approvøls On April 8, 1954, the Leeland Heights Subdivision plat, consisting of 12 lots on the west side of Lake Shore Drive, was recorded by the Sumner County Registrar. (P.8. 1, Page 209) before establishment of the R40 zoning. (Attachment2-3)  940 Lakeshore Drive - Variance (8-6007-17) October 26, 2017 In 1956, a2,053 square foot residence was constructed on Lot #5, at 940 Lakeshore Drive The east side of Lakeshore Drive has much larger lots than those on the west side. The lots on the east side are part of Leeland Heights #2. Many of the houses on the east side were constructed in the 1960s. Zoning Maps prepared by the State of Tennessee, dating back to 1979, show this area zoned R40 - Low Density Residential. Most of the lot sizes in this area conform to the R40 minimum lot area requirement. However, several lots on the west side of Lakeshore Drive, along the lake shore do not and are considered nonconforming. All buildings/structures must meet the restrictions of the zone in which they are located, even if the lot area does not conform. On July 27 ,2017 , the Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals (MBZA) met to hear arequest for a variance. However, only a setback variance request was advertised. At the meeting, the Board was informed that the applicant also needed to request a variance for the Maximum Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio, and would need to reappear before the Board. After discussion at the meeting, the Board acknowledged that the lot was nonconforming, and possibly three (3) to four (4) neighboring properties also were nonconforming On August 31,2017, the Board granted, a variance of 8.5 feet to permit the existing house to be 1 1.5 feet from the west side lot line and a variance of 7 .7 feet to permit a proposed addition to the southeast corner of the existing house to be 12.3 feet from the east side lot line. Section 06.03.020. C. of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty (20) foot wide side yard setback. The Board of Zoning Appeals also granted a variance to permit an addition of 0.06 (6%) from Section 06.03.030.4., Maximum Lot Coverage, allowing a lot coverage of 2lYo. A condition of the variance that the addition be twenty feet (20') wide and be placed on the same plane as the existing building encroachment that already exists. The variance allows an addition of 528 square feet. The proposed building plan submitted after the meeting met the 528 s.f. restriction. However, the construction plans changed and the applicant intends to construct 630 square feet. The applicant did not understand that the Maximum Lot Coverage applied to everything on the property under roof and some building areas were not included in the calculation. Requested Vøriance The owner and applicant now requests a greater variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirements for Maximum Lot Coverage, listed in Section 06.030.0304. of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance to construct a larger addition to the residence at 940 Lakeshore Drive in the Leeland Heights Subdivision. The owner is proposing to construct a20'x 28' addition with abay window and, a70 s.f. hallway totaling 630 sq.ft., which would increase the nonconforming condition of the property. The applicant initially inquired about this property in early June,2017 and was informed by staff that the existing structure appeared to be nonconforming and that a nonconformity did not constitute grounds for a variance. The current owners executed a deed of trust on June 15,2017. The application for a variance was filed with the Planning Department on June26,2017. 2 940 Lakeshore Drive - Variance (8-6007-17) October 26, 2017 The R4O-Low Density Residential zone district has the following Bulk Regulations pertaining to Maximum Lot Coverage: TABLE I R4O DISTRICT MINIMUMNVIAXIMUM STANDARDS BULK REGULATIONS ORDINANCE PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED W/REQUEST SECTION REOUIRED IN R-40 06.03.0304 Max. Lot 15% (2,830 s.f.) 3,568 s.f. 4,576 s.f. 24.25% Coverage 18.91% **Min. Req'd. Lot 40,000 s.f. 18,865 s.f 18,865 s.f. Area **No variance required since this is a pre-existing non-conforming condition 06.03.030 Bulk Resulations The bulk regulations appearing below apply to buildings or other structures located on any zone lot or portion of a zone lot, including all new developments, enlargements or conversions; provided, however, that all barns, sheds, silos, or other buildings used exclusively.for agricultural purposes shall be exempt from these regulations. A. Maximum Lot Coverage Permitted - the moximum zone lot coverage for all structures, including accessory structures, shall not exceedfifteen (15) percent of the total lot area. B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio - the maximumfloor area ratio shall be .15 Originally, no specific variance was requested for exceeding the Maximum Lot Coverage or Maximum Floor Area Ratio. These conditions were not included in the initial advertisement sent to the newspaper. Table 1 describes variance requests, from the bulk regulations for Maximum Lot Coverage. The existing house now exceeds the maximum permitted bulk regulations for the lot. The maximum permitted lot coverage in the R40 zone districtis l5o/o of the lot while the existing house covers I8.9I% of the tot. With the requested addition,24.25%0 of the lot will be covered by buildings. If granted, the variance would increase the nonconformity. According to Gallatin Zoning Ordinance, 15.05.040 Non-Conformit)' Does Not Constitute Grounds for Granting of a Variance No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance ofa variance. The applicant bought the residence at 940 Lakeshore Drive knowing it was a pre-existing nonconforming lot and structure. 3  940 Lakeshore Drive - Variance (8-6007-17) October 26, 2017 The Variance provisions of the Gallatin ZoningOrdinance that apply to this case are listed below. 15.05 Zoning Variances The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances where it makes findings of fact based upon the standards prescribed in this section. 15.05.030 Standards for Variances Section 15.05.030 of the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance states the Board of Zoning Appeals shall not grant a variance unless it makes findings based upon evidence presented to it as desciibed in nine (9) specific criteria that are listed below. The applicant responded to these standards, in writing, for the first meeting, but did not submit responses for this meeting. There is an e-mail stating the need for the new greater variance for Maximum Lot Coverage (Attachment2-4). The Board sliall determine if this variance request meets all nine (9) of the following standards for a variance as required by the Gallatin Zoning Ordinance. Staff is not aware that any of the former conditions have changed: A. The particular physical surroundings, shape, topographic conditions of the specific property involved that would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from u L"r" inconvenience, if the strict application of this Ordinance were carried out and must be stated. . Applicant did not respond based on the Maximum Lot Coverage variance. o Staff response: The particular physical surroundings, shape, size, and topographic conditions of the specific property results in a particular hardship upon the owner ur dirtingrrished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict application of this Ordinance were carried oui because the lot is only 18, 865 sq.ft.and now contains a house containing 3,568 sq.ft, and additional structures which result in a maximum lot coverage of 23.7o/o;. B. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same district. t Applicant did not respond based on the Maximum Lot Coverage variance. o Staff response: The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same district, since nearly all other properties in the subdivision contain lot areas compliant with the established R40 zoning; C' The variance will not authorize activities in a zone district other than those permitted by this Ordinance. . Applicant response: No unauthorized activity for this zone is being requested. Staff response: This variance will not authorize any use or activity that is currently not ' permitted in the R-40 zoning district. D. Financial returns only shall not be considered as a basis for granting a variance. t Applicant did not respond based on the Maximum Lot Coverage variance. o Staff response: Financial returns is not the basis for granting the variance; 4 940 Lakeshore Drive - Variance (8-6007-17) October 26, 2017 E. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property after the effective date of this Ordinance. . Applicant response: The hardship was not created by anyone with an interest in this property. o Staff response: The alleged diffrculty or hardship is created by a person having an interest in the property after the effective date of the Ordinance. The applicant recently purchased the property knowing that it was nonconforming for the zoning district. However the existing structure was constructed before it was purchased by the owners and before establishment of R-40 zoning. F. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. . Applicant response: We feel this request is a reasonable request and would be as such for any other property in the area. o Staff response: Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, since the property will be used for residential purposes and most homes in the immediate neighborhood contain lot area coverage and a floor area coverage larger than the applicants' house with the proposed addition; G. The variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. . Applicant response: The minimum variance needed is being requested. o Staff response: According to the applicant's site plan, the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary for the size and location the property owner desires H. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area in which the property is located. . Applicant response: The granting of this request is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area. o Staff response: If granted, the variance most likely will not adversely affect the adjacent property or nearby owners since the addition will be placed interior to the authorized and approved building setback line. I. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the area. . Applicant response: The request will not impair the supply of light and air to adjacent property or increase the congestion in the area. . Staff response: If granted, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, and will not increase traffic or otherwise endanger public safety. 5 940 Lokeshore Drive - Vqriance (8-6007-17) October 26, 2017 15.05.060 Conditions and Restrictions bv the Board The Board may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the provisions set out in Section 15.05.030 to reduce or minimize the injurious effect to such variations upon surounding property and better carry out the general intent of this Ordinance. The Board may establish expiration dates as a condition or as a part of the variances. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Engineering Division reviewed the variance request, and had no comments. OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REVIE\il COMMENTS Other City Departments reviewed the variance request, and none had any comments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Gallatin Municipal Board of Zoning Appeals approve GMBZA Resolution No. 201 7-1 0. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 2-l (A)Location Map, (B)Enlarged Aerial Photo Attachment 2-2 Murphy Variance Exhibit (B-6007 -17) Attachment 2-3 Plat of Leeland Heights Attachment 2-4 E-mail from Andy Leath, dated September 26,2017 6  HORÌ\DR zlk DR ,.,--- B 019.00 000 f'o'io"lLroN (\ 136D HAMILTON DR \) 125M B 01 125M B 024.00 000 "\^./- 5 t 7r\rAMrLroN 136D B a 125M B 016. 125M B 003.03 000 (l\,, 125M B 026.00 000 .< a 730 HAMILTON DR 136D B 004.00 00()> 927 EDR 136D 000 125M B 003.00 000 136D B 005.00 000 DR DR 136D B 006.00 a 136D B 007.00 000 DR a ./\ru <. > 136D A 011;00'000 136D 000 1,/ \,/ B 010.00 000 A 00 000 1 136D A 003.00 000 o20 DR ú 136D A 002.00 000 ( A 025.00 000 ATTAO.HNJTHruT ZI Ø  î^ - \\ í/, \) 940 Lakeshore Drive Legend Variance Request ? 940 Lakeshore Dr *loooÔtaq ,,/r ,ò\ *0-I E 'o. to !ii DRIVÊ-- + \kr(È .4ôâ¡ _ É GOnoñEf€ o &reR I u G o c ó 9 J I I ) \ t/ È. 9^ ) *rE LrÆ fl l/ fñuila 6 ë0q rc. E!. ar.o PLAT . LEELAND TIEIGHTS. SUBÞIVISON OF l'-3 CIVIL OISTRICÍ OF SUMNER COUNTY, TENNESSEE ctrÊgfgl LEÉ suM NER couNrY. (tEtA,EssEE F,LEqFoR R¡coÊo ,E ô, ---'õN "{lfÁi¿ ,"ât CÍBEE I FF 3:ti Pa' =: saue r rrcn= l0O' Sharon Burton 2 -'\ From Andy Leath <andy.leath@greenliddesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 26,2017 L0:07 AM To: Sharon Burton; William McCord (Planning) Subject: Murphy Variance Considering the covered back porch and the other ancillary structures we are over the 2t.7%. We calculate to be 23.7 and just for safe measure feel we should ask for 25%. I will get the application, check, and submittal sets to you today. Andy Leath, PE, CPESC GreenLlD Design, LLC 11"4 B West Main Street Gallatin, TN 37066 (o): (61s)23o-726e (c): (6ls)388-06s2 1 ATTNOH'ffiTHNT 2.4