Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingMurfreesboro, TN · April 22, 2020
Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro
Board of Zoning Appeals
April 22, 2020 – 1:00 P.M.
Zoom Video Meeting
MEMBERS VIDEO PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Davis Young, Chair
Ken Halliburton, Vice-Chair
Tim Tipps
Julie King
Misty Foy
STAFF PRESENT
Jafar Ware, Planner
Brad Barbee, Landscape Site Plan Inspector
Amelia Kerr, Planner
Marina Rush, Principal Planner
David Ives, Deputy City Attorney
Roman Hankins, Assistant City Attorney
Greg McKnight, Planning Director
Matthew Blomeley, Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant
Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M and determined that there was
a quorum present.
Chairman Young asked for a motion to perform the meeting electronically as necessary
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Tennesseans and Murfreesboro citizens in
light of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Mr. Halliburton made a motion to perform the meeting electronically. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Foy. Upon roll call the motion was passed by the following
vote:
Aye: Misty Foy
Ken Halliburton
Julie King
Tim Tipps
Davis Young
Nay: None
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
The minutes from the February 26, 2020 regular meeting were approved as submitted.
New Business
Special Use Permit Requests
Application Z-19-027 by Ms. Kristy Allen, requesting a special use permit in order to
conduct a home occupation (a beauty shop) at her residence located at 3877 Manson
Pike. The property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone.
Mr. Ware reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) Customer visits shall be by appointment only.
2) No more than one customer at a time shall visit the home-based business and
there shall be no overlapping appointments.
3) Any proposed signage shall comply with the Zoning and Sign Ordinances, shall
be attached to the home, shall not exceed 3 square-feet, and shall be subject to
any applicable permitting requirements.
4) The business shall open only on Tuesdays thru Saturdays and it shall open no
earlier than 8:30 AM and shall close no later than 5:30 PM.
Mr. & Mrs. Dan and Kristy Allen were present to answer any questions.
Mr. Tipps asked Mr. Ware to address the surrounding neighborhood relative to the
subject location at 3877 Manson Pike. He was under the impression this property was
located close to the Chamber of Commerce and the event facility at the end of Manson
Pike.
Mr. Ware made Mr. Tipps aware the Chamber of Commerce is on the other side of I-24,
adding this property is located to the west of I-24.
Mr. Tipps asked again about the surrounding neighborhood. He said there looks to be
another site nearby that is zoned Commercial Fringe.
Mr. Ware agreed there is a site nearby zoned Commercial Fringe, across the street is
unincorporated Rutherford County, and southeast of the property is an apartment
complex zoned RM-16.
Mr. Blomeley added that these houses were built in the unincorporated County and
annexed into the City about nine or ten years ago. He said this is a small single-family
residential subdivision and nearby to the east is a proposed multi-tenant commercial
building. Mr. Blomeley said there is a developing apartment complex to the south of the
proposed commercial building. He said when Mr. Ware referenced the appearance of
2
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
the building, Staff wanted to bring that up for Board discussion. He referred to
additional standard #3 for home occupations, which says “that there should be no
alteration of the residential building which changes the character thereof as a dwelling.”
Mr. Blomeley thought it was worth discussion by the Board as a potential issue and that
it is the Board’s determination whether or not that specific standard has been met.
Ms. King asked how the Board determines what is an appearance of a residential
building and what is the appearance of a commercial building. She asked if there is a
specific standard or is that just up to the observer.
Mr. Blomeley said there is not specific guidance in the Zoning Ordinance beyond the
sentence he read. He said it would be discretionary by the Board.
Ms. King said she didn’t know how the Board would be able to make that determination
without it being arbitrary to future petitioners.
Mr. Tipps agreed with Ms. King but also added that it is apparent this is an addition to
what is a typical residential ranch-style home. Mr. Tipps said it looks like it could be
retrofitted for a garage which would be a normal use for a residential property.
Chairman Young asked if the addition was built with proper permits and other than the
visual appearance if there is nothing out of line with it.
Mr. Ware said the addition meets all the setback requirements for a residential home in
the RS-15 district, which is 40-feet from the front lot line, and they did apply for
building permits.
Chairman Young asked the applicants if they had anything to add.
Mr. Allen said initially this was built as an addition to the house. Mr. Allen said that
until July 2019, Mrs. Allen had a full commercial operation at a commercial location
and she was only seeing an average of 1 to 1.5 clients a day. Mr. Allen looked at her
books and thinks she will have 1 to 2 people on a Saturday. He said there will not be
any walk-in capability like you would have in a commercial location. She is just going
to be taking care of her current client base and again that worked out to be about 1 to 2
clients per day. Mr. Allen said she doesn’t take appointments until 10:00 a.m. and the
last appointment would be 5:00 p.m. so they would be finishing at 6:00 p.m. if that
meets the Board’s approval.
Chairman Young thanked Mr. Allen and asked if there were any questions for the
applicant.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing.
3
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Mr. Blomeley said no one contacted Staff by the deadline to register to speak.
There being no one to speak, Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Chairman Young opened the floor for any further discussion or motion.
Mr. Halliburton said the condition of approval dictates that their operating hours would
be from 10:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., but the applicant just said the client would leave by 6:00
p.m. He said if the Board approves this, it may need to condition that the ending time
would be 6:00 p.m. versus 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Blomeley said we would need clarification on the hours of operation, relative to that
proposed condition. Mr. Blomeley said that the applicants indicated they wish to take
advantage of the option to have the 3 square-foot attached sign for their business. That
is why that recommended condition of approval regarding signage was included in the
staff report.
Chairman Young recognized the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Allen said prior to Mrs. Allen moving into the commercial property they also had a
home-based business on John R Rice Boulevard, and this would be use of the same sign
that the Board previously approved, if they desire to use the sign. He said they are not
sure if they are going to put the sign up or not, but they want the Board’s permission.
Chairman Young said that, as long as the sign meets the square-footage and size
requirements according to City Staff, it is allowed by right.
Mr. Blomeley said the sign is not allowed by-right. It would have to be expressly
approved as a part of the BZA application.
Chairman Young asked if there were stipulations on where that sign could be located
like the front or side of the house.
Mr. Ware said the sign can be attached to the front.
Chairman Young asked if there were any further questions or a motion.
Mr. Tipps said it meets the requirements that the applicant has to have and with respect
to that design, as you look at that neighborhood especially on Manson Pike there appears
to be somewhat of a transition from a rural/suburban residential to some light
commercial along Manson Pike. He said the owner’s plans seem to be consistent with
the requirements of a special use permit.
4
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Chairman Young asked if the conditions of approval would include the sign. He also
asked what closing time Mr. Tipps wished to recommend as 5:30 p.m. was in the staff
comments and the applicant requested 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve the special use permit request with the
following conditions:
1) Customer visits shall be by appointment only.
2) No more than one customer at a time shall visit the home-based business
and there shall be no overlapping appointments.
3) Any proposed signage shall comply with the Zoning and Sign Ordinances,
shall be attached to the home, shall not exceed 3 square-feet, and shall be
subject to any applicable permitting requirements.
4) The business shall open only on Tuesdays thru Saturdays and it shall open
no earlier than 8:30 AM and shall close no later than 6:00 PM.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Foy. Upon roll call the motion was passed by the
following vote:
Aye: Misty Foy
Ken Halliburton
Julie King
Tim Tipps
Davis Young
Nay: None
Application Z-20-009 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering,
Inc, for Believers Tabernacle, Inc., requesting a special use permit for the expansion
of an existing institutional group assembly use (a church) in a Residential Single-Family
(RS-15) zone for property located at 700 County Farm Road and on the adjacent parcel
to the west identified as Tax Map 136E, Group A, Parcel 00400. The proposed
expansion consists of the construction of a parking lot.
Mr. Ware reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) The applicant shall submit a site plan for review and approval in accordance with
the regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
2) A subdivision plat combining the church parcel and the lot with the parking lot
expansion shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the site work permit.
3) The site plan shall be revised to remove parking spaces from the required front
yard. However, if a variance is approved in the future by the BZA to allow
5
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
parking spaces in the required front yard, an amendment to the special use permit
shall not be required.
4) A Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence shall be provided along the west
property line as far south as the southern limits of the proposed parking lot.
Mr. Clyde Rountree was present to answer any questions.
Chairman Young asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Rountree said Mr. Holder would like to add a commentary on the history of the
parking lot. Mr. Rountree said they are requesting the best use of the parking lot today
but will be coming back to the BZA to request a variance to the requirement that the
parking spaces may not be located in the required front yard. Mr. Holder would like to
give the logic behind the upcoming variance for the parking spaces.
Mr. Blomeley offered to provide some additional history before Mr. Holder begins. Mr.
Blomeley said there is an existing gravel parking lot on this property that is in violation.
The church is proposing to construct this parking lot as a means to remedy that violation.
He said their options were to either remove the gravel from the property and then seed
and straw the area or to construct a compliant parking lot. Mr. Blomeley said the church
is proposing to construct a compliant parking lot. He said that they do wish to apply
next month for a variance to the standard that prohibits parking for institutional group
assembly uses in the required front yard (i.e. the required front setback). Mr. Blomeley
said that is not an issue in today’s meeting. He said what the Board will be doing is
determining whether or not the use that is being requested in the special use permit
application meets all of the standards to be located on this property which is in an RS-15
zone. Mr. Blomeley said the variance to allow parking in the front setback will the
subject of a separate application next month. He said that would not be something to
deliberate on at today’s meeting because a separate public hearing will be required. Mr.
Blomeley said Staff has no issue with the Board acting on the special use permit request
today. Regarding the special use permit, if the variance is granted next month, then the
site plan could show parking in the required front yard. If the variance is not granted
next month, the site plan will have to be revised to remove the parking from the required
front setback.
Chairman Young said even though their use is not really changing, anytime that an
applicant that has a special use permit makes any changes then it comes back before the
Board of Zoning Appeals for review.
Mr. Blomeley said we make a determination on whether or not the changes are
significant enough to warrant an amendment to the special use permit. He said what
they would be coming back to you for next month would be a variance to allow parking
in the front setback. He said one of the standards for institutional group assembly uses
6
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
in residential zones is that parking may not be located in the required front building
setback. Mr. Blomeley said the applicant did not request a variance to that standard for
today’s agenda and all they requested was a special use permit. He said because that has
to be advertised as a separate variance and it was not advertised for this meeting, they
will have to make a separate application for that proposed variance. Mr. Blomeley said
regardless of that, the Board can act today on the special use permit request to allow the
construction of this parking lot with the knowledge that the layout may change a little bit
depending on whether or not a variance is granted for parking in the front setback. He
said we would not require it to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an
amendment to a special use permit if the special use permit is approved today.
However, if they choose to request a variance, that will need to come back.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing.
Mr. Blomeley said no one contacted Staff by the deadline to register to speak. Mr.
Blomeley reminded Chairman Young that Mr. Rountree mentioned the applicant, Mr.
Holder, would like to say a few words.
There being no one to speak, Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Holder with Believers Tabernacle spoke stating he understands about the
variance request and told there was no other recourse but to appeal to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Mr. Holder said Mr. Blomeley emailed him last night and said the
church could attempt to obtain a variance and that is what they are planning to do. He
said they have been waiting a couple of months for this meeting today and they would
like to have the variance on next month’s agenda. He was not sure if they have missed
the deadline to turn in for the next agenda but because of COVID-19, two months have
gone by and had they known sooner, they would have applied for a variance. Mr.
Holder said if the State opens things back up so they can have services, he would like to
make sure their certificate of occupancy is not delayed while they continue to go through
the process.
Chairman Young thanked Mr. Holder and asked if there were any questions or if
someone would like to make a motion.
Mr. Holder asked if the special use permit is approved today, are they required to follow
the requirements of landscaping as they are shown. He said a fence has been
recommended but if the landscaping will be connected with the variance instead of the
special use permit, they will wait and discuss it then.
Mr. Blomeley said there are some recommended conditions of approval pertaining to the
special use permit, adding there is a vacant residential lot to the west. Rather than
having parking next to that vacant residential lot, when there is a house built on that lot
7
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Staff would like to add some screening there to mitigate the impacts of having a parking
lot right next to it. Staff has recommended a landscape buffer with a privacy fence. Mr.
Blomeley said the main purpose of the privacy fence is to keep headlights from shining
into that residential lot. Mr. Blomeley said that is a recommended condition, as Mr.
Ware read earlier, but it is up to the Board’s discretion as to whether or not to follow the
condition that Staff has recommended or to modify it or to remove it altogether.
Mr. Halliburton referred to Mr. Holder’s reference about a certificate of occupancy and
asked if anything the Board did today would cause a delay of the church not being able
to have services or something of that nature, assuming services would be permitted after
May 1st.
Mr. Blomeley said he has been working with Mr. Holder and with Ms. Marina Rush,
Principal Planner, on trying to bring that gravel parking lot into compliance and trying to
come up with an appropriate path to that. Mr. Blomeley said the church is doing an
addition onto the existing church building, so they were planning to tie the C of O for
the addition to bringing the parking lot into compliance. He said they will revisit that
with the applicant and look at the timing of when they are going to be complete with the
building addition and see what our options are at that time. Mr. Blomeley said right now
he is not prepared to commit one way or the other as to the timing.
Mr. Rountree said the new facility should be complete within the next 30 days. He
asked Mr. Holder to verify.
Mr. Holder agreed with Mr. Rountree and said it looks like the addition should be
complete within the next 30 days. He also mentioned he lost the Zoom connection and
did not hear what Mr. Blomeley said.
Mr. Blomeley told Mr. Holder that after today’s meeting he would talk with him
independently and look at the timing of when the parking lot will be completed versus
when the addition will be completed and evaluate what the opportunities are there.
Mr. Holder said they would prefer not to install the privacy fence along the western
property line. He requested the Board to consider this.
Chairman Young said the recommendations from the Staff to the Board were to include
a Type-C buffer and the privacy fence along the western property line.
Mr. Holder asked if the approval today of the special use permit is contingent upon
having the fence there or not having the fence there. He said they do not want to install
a fence there. He said the fence will make the property look unsightly and give a closed-
in feeling.
8
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Chairman Young said that is one of the items the Board is discussing. He said anytime a
non-residential use is proposed in a residential zone, screening and fencing are always
items that are discussed.
Mr. Tipps asked if Staff feels that a fence or screening is necessary to preserve the
residential dwelling next door so that lights and other things would not impact it
adversely.
Mr. Blomeley agreed and added the lot next door is a residential single-family lot, but
the lot is vacant at the present time. Staff was suggesting some appropriate screen or
transition so that when a house is built there, the residents won’t have headlights shining
into their yard or house. He said oftentimes a privacy fence is how we accomplish that
in conjunction with a buffer. Mr. Blomeley said privacy fences can be used to reduce
the amount of plantings adding a Type C option is what Staff recommended in the staff
comments however there is a Type B option which is a 10-foot wide buffer instead of a
12-foot wide buffer that may allow for more flexibility because it is a narrower width.
Mr. Blomeley said Staff recommended the fence but that is certainly at the Board’s
discretion as to whether or not the Board feels that is appropriate.
Mr. Tipps asked Mr. Blomeley if landscape screening would accomplish the same thing
as a privacy fence to obscure any adverse lighting to the neighbor next door to the
subject property.
Mr. Blomeley said in this case that might be appropriate, adding if it were a developed
lot next door with a house, he would feel more strongly about a privacy fence because a
privacy fence will have a more immediate impact. He said the buffer will allow lights to
shine through because for the first few years there are gaps in between the plantings.
Mr. Blomeley said since there is no house right now, it may be appropriate to not have
the fence since immediate measures would not be needed to eliminate lights shining into
a house next door.
Chairman Young asked if the fence is Mr. Holder’s main concerns or if he is concerned
with the landscaping as well.
Mr. Blomeley thinks Mr. Holder’s concern is more with the fence than the landscaping
if he is hearing Mr. Holder correctly.
Mr. Holder agreed adding trees and bushes will make it look nice but feels a fence is an
intrusion to it and seems to fence you in. He said landscape looks natural. He said they
are doing everything they can to save every tree and every bush on the property so
adding trees or bushes is good for them and looks good for the property and
neighborhood.
9
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Mr. Joseph Hamid, the Pastor of Believers Tabernacle, said the reason they are leaning
toward the trees is as far as their services and how they are conducted here, there will be
no headlights affecting any of the neighborhood. He said they only have two services,
one on Sunday morning and one on Wednesday evening from 7:00 until 8:30 p.m. He
said if someone should purchase the property beside their parking lot, the front of their
home would be facing County Farm Road. There will be no direct lighting into their
property. He said this is why they are leaning towards more of the trees. Mr. Hamid
feels that a fence will block out the sight of the church building.
Ms. King asked what change the Board might want to make to that condition. Would
they want the buffer to remain a Type C buffer with no fence?
Mr. Blomeley said the Type C buffer would be 12-feet wide and a little thicker than the
Type B buffer which would be 10-feet wide.
Mr. Barbee said the main difference between a Type C buffer and a Type B buffer is the
reduction of two feet in width and there is a reduction of a single row of shrubs. He said
the shrubs in a Type C buffer usually catch on and grow faster than the trees, so they
will catch the debris that might blow across a parking lot or the headlights that might go
across a parking lot and to fill-in those lower areas very quickly with the larger trees
filling in, in the following years. You usually see the buffer mature in about a 3 to 4-
year timespan.
Ms. King asked if the City would be ok with a Type B buffer and changing that
recommendation.
Mr. Blomeley said he would be comfortable with either a Type B or Type C buffer
knowing that there is not existing house. A Type B buffer would have an opportunity to
grow in between now and when a house would be constructed to fill in some of those
gaps that would be present with the initial planting of the buffer.
Chairman Young asked if there were any other questions or a motion.
Ms. King made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall submit a site plan for review and approval in
accordance with the regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
2) A subdivision plat combining the church parcel and the lot with the parking
lot expansion shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the site work permit.
3) The site plan shall be revised to remove parking spaces from the required
front yard. However, if a variance is approved in the future by the BZA to
allow parking spaces in the required front yard, an amendment to the
special use permit shall not be required.
10
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
4) A Type B buffer shall be provided along the west property line as far south
as the southern limits of the proposed parking lot.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tipps. Upon roll call the motion was passed by
the following vote:
Aye: Misty Foy
Ken Halliburton
Julie King
Tim Tipps
Davis Young
Nay: None
Special Use Permit Amendment Request
Application Z-20-010 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering,
Inc., for the South Central Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists,
requesting to amend a special use permit that was approved by the Board of Zoning
Appeals in May 2019 for the expansion of an existing institutional group assembly use
(a church) in a Residential Single-Family (RS-8) zone for property located at 711 North
Maney Avenue. The proposed expansion consists of a building addition at the rear of
the existing church building. This amendment seeks to modify the design and footprint
of the proposed building addition that was approved in May 2019.
Mr. Ware reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) A Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence shall be installed along the north
property line and along the common property line with 638 Courtland Street.
The Type C buffer shall maintain the required 12’ width except where shown on
the attached landscape plan.
3) The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall match the existing building
in appearance, although the materials used may be different.
4) The solid waste enclosure shall consist of a masonry wall.
Mr. Rountree and Mr. Bill Huddleston were present to represent the application and
answer any questions .
Chairman Young asked if there were any questions for Staff.
11
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
Mr. Blomeley said the approved footprint from May 2019 was included in the agenda
materials. He referred to the exterior materials of the existing building, Staff was not
aware that the existing church building had metal siding until today because the
architectural elevations Staff received showed both the existing church building and the
proposed addition to consist of fiber-cement siding. Mr. Blomeley received a text from
the contractor today that indicated the church wished to use board and batten hardi-
board siding, which is fiber-cement siding, on the addition to match the existing metal
siding as best they can. He said that the Board doesn’t act as an architectural review
board. He said the Board’s major concern is to make sure that the architecture is not
going to have a negative impact on the adjacent residential area. With the new
information provided to Staff today regarding the existing exterior materials, Staff
recommended a modification of the original condition in the agenda materials, so that
the proposed exterior materials match the existing exterior materials. Mr. Blomeley said
that would be whether or not they use the same type of materials as the existing church
which are architectural metal panels or whether they are able to install fiber-cement
siding that is able to match the existing church building. He said the main concern is to
make sure the addition is compatible with the area around it and because there is a little
bit of uncertainty with regards to the architectural elevations, Staff revised that
recommended condition to be a little more open-ended, allowing more flexibility,
provided that the Board is comfortable with the revised condition as Mr. Barbee stated
it.
Chairman Young asked if there were any other questions for Staff.
Mr. Huddleston said he understands the requirement about the Type C buffer which is
12-feet in width; however, at one corner it looks like we have got a sidewalk slightly
encroaching into that 12-feet. He asked if that would be ok.
Mr. Barbee said as part of the conditions of approval, the Type C buffer was referenced
to be 12-feet except where it is shown as being less than that on the landscape plan that
was submitted.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. Mr. Blomeley said no one contacted Staff
by the deadline to register to speak. There being no one to speak, Chairman Young
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) A Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence shall be installed along the north
property line and along the common property line with 638 Courtland
Street. The Type C buffer shall maintain the required 12’ width except
where shown on the landscape plan submitted.
12
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 22, 2020
3) The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall match the existing
building in appearance, although the materials used may be different.
4) The solid waste enclosure shall consist of a masonry wall.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Foy. Upon roll call the motion was passed by the
following vote:
Aye: Misty Foy
Ken Halliburton
Julie King
Tim Tipps
Davis Young
Nay: None
Staff Reports and Other Business
Mr. Blomeley and Mr. Ives thanked the Board members for their patience while working
thru this difficult time and use of the Zoom to hold the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 P.M.
_____________________________ _______________________________
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
13
Agenda
CITY OF MURFREESBORO
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting, April 22, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1st Floor
In accordance with Executive Order No. 16 issued by Governor Bill Lee, the Murfreesboro
Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 2020 meeting will be conducted electronically and there
will not be physical public access to the meeting as necessary to protect public health,
safety, and welfare in light of the coronavirus. The public may view the meetings
electronically through Murfreesboro CityTV which is broadcast on Comcast Xfinity
Channels 3 and 1094 and on AT&T U-verse Channel 99. The meeting can also be streamed
on Roku, YouTube (www.youtube.com/cityofmurfreesboro), Facebook
(www.facebook.com/cityofmurfreesborotn), and the City’s website (and
www.murfreesborotn.gov).
AGENDA
1. Call to order
2. Determination of a quorum
3. Determination that meeting electronically is necessary to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of Tennesseans and Murfreesboro citizens in light of the
COVID-19 outbreak
4. Consideration of minutes for the regular meeting on February 26, 2020
5. New Business
Special Use Permit Requests
a. Application Z-19-027 by Ms. Kristy Allen, is requesting a special use
permit in order to conduct a home occupation (a beauty shop) at her residence
located at 3877 Manson Pike. The property is located in a Residential Single-
Family (RS-15) zone. (Project Planner: Jafar Ware)
b. Application Z-20-009 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele
Engineering, Inc., for Believers Tabernacle, Inc., is requesting a special
use permit for the expansion of an existing institutional group assembly use
(a church) in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property located
at 700 County Farm Road and on the adjacent parcel to the west identified as
1
Tax Map 136E, Group A, Parcel 00400. The proposed expansion consists of
the construction of a parking lot. (Project Planner: Jafar Ware)
Special Use Permit Amendment Request
c. Application Z-20-010 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele
Engineering, Inc., for the South Central Conference Association of
Seventh Day Adventists, is requesting to amend a special use permit that
was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in May 2019 for the expansion
of an existing institutional group assembly use (a church) in a Residential
Single-Family (RS-8) zone for property located at 711 North Maney Avenue.
The proposed expansion consists of a building addition at the rear of the
existing church building. This amendment seeks to modify the design and
footprint of the proposed building addition that was approved in May 2019.
(Project Planner: Brad Barbee)
6. Staff Reports and Other Business
7. Adjourn
2
Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2020 – 1:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Davis Young, Chair
Ken Halliburton, Vice-Chair
Tim Tipps
Julie King
Misty Foy
STAFF PRESENT
Jafar Ware, Planner
Brad Barbee, Landscape Site Plan Inspector
Austin Cooper, Planner
Roman Hankins, Assistant City Attorney
Matthew Blomeley, Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant
Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M.
The minutes from the January 22, 2020 regular meeting were approved as submitted.
Old Business
Special Use Permit Request
Application Z-20-001 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering,
Inc., representing Enterprise Holdings, Inc., requesting a special use permit in order
to establish a motor vehicle sales and rental facility on property in the Commercial
Highway (CH) district located along the south side of Franklin Road east of Franklin
Heights Drive (the subject property is also identified as Tax Map 0920, Group B, Parcel
00200).
Mr. Ware reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The site plan set shall include architectural elevations and demonstrate
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Design
Guidelines.
2) The design of the gates will be subject to the final review and approval of the
Planning Department to ensure that there are adequate turnaround areas for
vehicles and to ensure that vehicles will not be forced to back out into the public
right-of-way.
3) A privacy fence and earthen berm shall be required along the south and west
property lines. The privacy fence and berm shall not be a substitute for any of
the standard Type E buffer yard plantings; rather, it shall be in addition to the
standard Type E buffer yard.
Mr. Blomeley said Staff met with the applicant and their design team shortly after the
January BZA meeting to discuss the concerns that were brought up at that BZA meeting.
He said Staff has had adequate time to review their plans this month. Mr. Blomeley said
the applicants added an earthen berm. With the conditions on-site, they were able to get
a 2.7-foot earthen berm to include within that 20-foot Type E buffer yard along the west
and south property lines. He said they are doing a threefold plan to mitigate the negative
impacts on the adjacent neighborhood -- the 20-foot Type E buffer, the 2.7-foot tall
earthen berm, and the 6-foot-tall privacy fence. Mr. Blomeley said the fence and the
berm are in addition to the standard buffer yard plantings, not in lieu of any of those
plantings. He said the applicants also relocated the Dumpster, so it was a little further
away from the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Blomeley said the Dumpster is actually
closer to but not oriented to face the new public street along the eastern property line.
Staff felt it was more important to get it further away from the neighbors than it would
to get it further away from that new public right-of-way. Mr. Blomeley said their plans
show a little bit different front parking layout to specify the maximum number of
vehicles they can have for sale or rent on the property at any point in time. Staff feels
comfortable they are meeting the standards that are specific for motor vehicle sales
facilities in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Blomeley said there is no requirement for another public hearing as the public
hearing for this matter was held last month. He said Mr. Bill Huddleston and Mr. Clyde
Rountree from Huddleston-Steele Engineering are here as representing Enterprise
Holdings.
Mr. Halliburton asked if the location of the fence would be on top of the earthen berm or
in the middle between the berm and trees.
Mr. Blomeley said the fence will be located on the outside, closer to the property line.
He said the fence is not as much for visual screening as to be a physical barrier between
the car lot and the adjacent neighborhood.
2
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve with the following conditions of
approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The site plan set shall include architectural elevations and
demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Design Guidelines.
2) The design of the gates will be subject to the final review and approval of
the Planning Department to ensure that there are adequate turnaround
areas for vehicles and to ensure that vehicles will not be forced to back out
into the public right-of-way.
3) A privacy fence and earthen berm shall be required along the south and
west property lines. The privacy fence and berm shall not be a substitute
for any of the standard Type E buffer yard plantings; rather, it shall be in
addition to the standard Type E buffer yard plantings.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tipps and carried unanimously in favor.
New Business
Variance Requests
Application Z-20-005 by Mr. Matt Taylor of SEC, Inc., for Mr. Eric Blum, is
requesting a 19’ variance from the minimum required 25’ rear building setback for
principal structures, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard
Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning
Ordinance, for property located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-16) zone at 627
East Street.
Mr. Barbee reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following condition of approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for administrative
review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant was present to answer any questions.
Ms. King asked if this is within the City Core Overlay District (CCO).
Mr. Blomeley said this property is right outside of the boundaries of the CCO.
Ms. King asked if other houses in this area are in similar circumstances as the ones in
the CCO.
3
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
Mr. Blomeley said when Staff looked at expanding the CCO District, the decision was
made not to include the streets that are just to the east and west of campus like Fairview,
Eaton, Crestland, East Street, and West Street. He doesn’t know the reason why those
streets were not included but it may be something they need to look at in the future. He
said the lots on the west side of East Street are all very shallow, adding that most of the
structures are very close to the rear property line. Mr. Blomeley said this lot was platted
in 1946, prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1984. With them
wanting to redevelop the lot and tear down the existing structure, it makes it very
difficult with the current lot depth and the existing setbacks, resulting in about a 25-foot
deep building envelope.
Mr. Matt Taylor said he feels this is a difficult situation that may be solved in the future
with an ordinance amendment. He thanked the Board for their consideration and will
answer any questions they might have.
Mr. Halliburton said that there is only 1.5 feet difference of where the existing structure
is today versus what is being proposed.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak, Chairman
Young closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve the request with the following condition:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
administrative review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Foy and carried unanimously in favor.
Application Z-20-006 by Mr. Matt Taylor of SEC, Inc., for RaceTrac, is making the
following requests regarding a proposed solid waste enclosure for property located in a
Highway Commercial (CH) zone at the northeast corner of Shelbyville Pike and Tiger
Hill (also identified as Lot 3 of the Wal-Mart Supercenter Subdivision and Tax Map
126, Parcel 02701):
▪ A variance from Section 25(E)(5) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance,
which states that, in commercial zoning districts, accessory structures shall comply
with the same front setback as is required for the principal structure.
▪ A 33’ variance from the minimum required 42’ front building setback in the CH
zone, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard
Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Ware reviewed the application and staff comments.
Chairman Young asked for clarification on why there were two variance requests.
4
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
Mr. Blomeley said sometimes when we have a variance request, there are two parts of
the Zoning Ordinance that say the same thing, so Staff makes sure to include every
applicable part of the ordinance.
Mr. Matt Taylor said the site has about 25-foot of fall from the rear to the front toward
the street which makes this location very unique. He said most of the commercial sites
are very flat and used Medical Center Parkway as an example adding they are about 2%
or less grade. The uniqueness of the grade on the subject property and having three
front setbacks are the primary reasons why he has made this request. Because they
couldn’t fit everything inside the setback, they found the least intrusive location on the
site. Mr. Taylor reviewed a couple of street view renderings which were also included
in the agenda packet. He said the Dumpster and parking are placed within the hillside
along with the required shrubbery and trees to block the view even more. Mr. Taylor
said they evaluated several other locations for the Dumpster, one being at the rear of the
property close to the transformer pad as shown on the site plan. He said at that location
the grade change went up and down with ramps about five or six different times just to
be able to make those grades work. They also looked at another area, which did not
meet the intent of the ordinance or design guidelines on the Dumpsters being hidden.
He said that location would face toward the public right-of-way and would be more
intrusive than the chosen location.
Mr. Tipps asked if the elevation in the southeast corner at Christie Knob and Tiger Hill
is a little over 700 feet.
Mr. Taylor said yes.
Mr. Tipps verified they are proposing the enclosure be placed just below that.
Mr. Taylor said the Dumpster would sit at approximately 685 feet. The enclosure wall
is 8-foot and there is also a retaining wall that goes around that and is about 15-16 feet
tall.
Mr. Halliburton asked if the retaining wall will act as the rear wall.
Mr. Taylor said there are actually two walls, a retaining wall and the Dumpster wall.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against
the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Chairman Young said two motions would be needed, one for each variance request.
5
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
Ms. King made a motion to approve a variance from Section 25 (E)(5) of the City of
Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures adhere
to the same front and side setbacks as the principle structure. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Tipps and carried unanimously in favor.
Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 33’ variance from the minimum
required 42’ front building setback in the CH zone, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum
Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of
the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Ms. Foy
and carried unanimously in favor.
Special Use Permit Request
Application Z-20-004 by Ms. Jennifer Thibodeaux, for Trinity Presbyterian
Church, is requesting a special use permit for the expansion of an existing institutional
group assembly use (a church) in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property
located at 1020 North Rutherford Boulevard. The proposed expansion consists of a
building addition and parking lot modifications.
Mr. Barbee reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) The proposed architectural elevations shall be revised to show brick that is
consistent with the existing structure.
3) A masonry solid waste enclosure shall be constructed for the Dumpster.
The applicant was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Tipps asked if it is possible or practical to match the existing brick.
Mr. Rick Thurman with the Trinity Group, representing the applicant, said they did the
addition to the back of the building in 2016-2017 and the reason they ended up using
board and batten in the rear is because they were unable to match the brick they had.
Mr. Thurman said the building was originally built in approximately 1997 and they
could not find one that matched in both color and texture and that looked good enough
to use. He said if they cannot do what is proposed on the drawing, they have thought of
other options they could do besides the board and batten. Mr. Thurman said they could
try a complementary brick and referred to the drawing. He said they will need to
demolish the end of the building to do the expansion and will try to salvage enough
brick to use on the front of the building so it will match. He said there is also a line of
brick around the bottom of the wall to tie everything together. Beyond that, there is not
enough brick to do the rest of the expansion. If board and batten is not acceptable
6
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
maybe they could come up with a complementary brick He said if that doesn’t work,
possibly paint the brick a complementary color that would work.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. Being there was no one to speak for or
against the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blomeley said the Board does not have to iron out the details of the architecture
today but asked for the leeway to work with the applicant understanding the difficulties
finding the brick. He said the Design Guidelines envision the siding like they are
showing for the board and batten siding as more of a secondary material than a primary
material. He said Staff is not saying they can’t use the board and batten at all but instead
it should be a secondary material instead of a primary material on the new façade. Mr.
Blomeley said Staff will be happy to work with the applicants during the site plan
review process to work out an alternative.
Mr. Tipps said that he doesn’t want the BZA to get into being the “brick police” because
that is a little extreme. As long as it is simple, complementary, and tasteful he sees no
issue with it.
Ms. King asked if the Board could remove that as a condition and then we would expect
the applicant to work with Planning to meet the guidelines for this type of structure.
Mr. Blomeley agreed.
Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve with the following conditions:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) The proposed architectural elevations for the addition shall be revised to
demonstrate compliance with the City of Murfreesboro Design Guidelines
subject to the review and approval of City Planning Department.
3) A masonry solid waste enclosure shall be constructed for the Dumpster.
The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor.
Mr. Blomeley pointed out the purpose of the BZA is not to be an architectural review
board but one thing he does not want to do is set up any incorrect expectations for the
applicants. When they submit architectural elevations and he sees there might be issues
with those, he doesn’t want to set the expectation in the applicant’s mind that those are
approved after the BZA acts on the application.
Mr. Tipps said he lives in that area. Not very far from there is a commercial area,
adding there is a Taco Bell with every type of siding imaginable on it. He said with an
institutional type of building he thinks it can lend itself to various looking exteriors.
7
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
Mr. Blomeley assured the Board that Staff will work with the applicants on the
architecture.
Special Use Permit Amendment Request
Application Z-20-003 by Mr. Neil James, for Redeemer Classical Academy, is
requesting to amend special use permits that were approved by the Board of Zoning
Appeals in July 2013, January 2014, and January 2015. The special use permits
established an institutional group assembly use (a private school) in a Residential
Single-Family (RS-10) zone for property located at 1503 Sulphur Springs Road. The
approval of the January 2015 special use permit amendment was conditioned upon the
requirement that all portable classroom buildings must be removed from the property no
later than July 31, 2020. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the special use
permits for a two-year extension to this deadline in order to allow the portable classroom
buildings to remain on-site until July 31, 2022.
Mr. Cooper reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this
request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) All portable classroom buildings must be removed from the property no later
than July 31, 2022 or when Redeemer Classical Academy vacates the property –
whichever comes first.
2) The maximum number of students allowed to be enrolled at the school is 65. If
the school desires to have a greater number of students, then it must apply to the
BZA to amend the special use permit. A traffic study will be required at that
time.
3) No staging or queuing of school traffic will be allowed on either Myers Drive or
Sulphur Springs Road.
The applicant was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Neal James said the school purchased 20 acres of property on Old Salem Road last
year. He met with Ms. Marina Rush, Principal Planner, on Monday for the pre-
application process. They are in the process of fund-raising and it took them a little bit
longer to find property in Murfreesboro. He said they are ready to go and just need time
to build.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against
the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Ms. Foy made a motion to approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1) All portable classroom buildings must be removed from the property no
later than July 31, 2022 or when Redeemer Classical Academy vacates the
property – whichever comes first.
8
BZA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 26, 2020
2) The maximum number of students allowed to be enrolled at the school is 65.
If the school desires to have a greater number of students, then it must
apply to the BZA to amend the special use permit. A traffic study will be
required at that time.
3) No staging or queuing of school traffic will be allowed on either Myers Drive
or Sulphur Springs Road.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tipps and carried unanimously in favor.
Staff Reports and Other Business
None
The meeting adjourned at 1:41 P.M.
_____________________________ _______________________________
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
9
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 22, 2020
PROJECT PLANNER: JAFAR WARE
Application: Z-19-027
Location: 3877 Manson Pike (Map 078L, Group A, Parcel 00500)
Applicant: Kristy Allen
Owner: Dan and Kristy Allen
Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (RS-15)
Requests: A special use permit to conduct a home-based business (a hair salon)
Special Use Permit Request Overview
The applicant, Ms. Kristy Allen, a Certified Master Cosmetologist, has operated a hair salon in
Murfreesboro for 17 years. The applicant has decided to close her full-service beauty salon in the
Oaks Shopping Center to order to relocate her business to her residence. The location of the
property is 3877 Manson Pike, which is in a Single Family Residential (RS-15) zoning district.
Because her home-based business will generate customer traffic, a special use permit is required.
The proposed home-based business would only have space for one chair and would be by
appointment only. The applicant says, based on her experience with her commercial storefront she
has previously operated, she averages two clients per day from Tuesday to Friday and up to four
clients on Saturdays. There would be no employees besides herself at the business and the
customers would park in the off-street parking area. The hours of operation would be from 10 am
to 5:30 pm on Tuesday through Saturday; by appointment only.
Relevant Zoning Ordinance Section
Chart 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance allows home occupations as a special use
in the RS-15 district. City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance Section 9(D)(2)(rr) sets forth
Standards for home occupations in addition to the Standards of General Applicability in Section
9(C). The applicant has affirmed in her special use permit application letter that the home-based
business will be operated in compliance with all zoning requirements.
The applicable standards are listed below with information from Staff on how the applicant
intends to address them.
Standards of General Applicability with Staff analysis:
(1) The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon
adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility
facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare:
Staff does not anticipate any such adverse impact as a result of this home occupation.
(2) The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as to be
compatible with the immediate vicinity and not to interfere with the development and
use of adjacent property in accordance with the applicable district regulations:
The applicant has added an addition to the home for use in conjunction with the home-based
business. The RS-15 zoning district does not require specific building materials for principal
structures. Pictures of the addition are included in the staff report. Staff is concerned that the
building addition has the appearance of a commercial structure. The BZA should discuss the
appearance of the building addition and determine whether it is compatible with the adjacent
neighborhood, considering its proposed use as a home-based hair salon.
(3) The proposed buildings or use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, parking spaces, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
fire protection, water and sewers; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the
establishment of the proposed use will provide adequately for such services:
It is Staff’s opinion that the traffic generated by the proposed business will not put undue stress
on the public street network. In addition, it should not put an unnecessary burden on utilities
and other public infrastructure.
(4) The proposed building or use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any
feature determined by the BZA to be significant natural, scenic, or historic importance:
No features of significant natural, scenic, or historic importance have been identified on the
subject property by Staff or the applicant.
(5) The proposed building or use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the particular provision of this section authorizing such use:
The applicant has indicated in her letter to the Board that she believes that the proposed use
will comply with the additional standards for home occupations. (See below for additional
detail.)
Additional Standards for Home Occupations with Staff Analysis:
(1) No person who is not a resident of the dwelling unit may be employed in connection
with the home occupation at the dwelling unit or on the property;
The applicant will be the only employee.
(2) One attached business sign, not exceeding three square feet, may be permitted subject
to approval by the BZA. Such signs shall not be permitted by right;
The applicant is requesting a three square-foot attached sign as a part of this application.
The BZA must determine whether or not a sign is appropriate.
(3) There shall be no alteration of the residential building which changes the character as
a dwelling. No display of products shall be visible from the street;
No display of products is proposed to be visible from the street. There has already been an
alteration of the residential building for the proposed home-based business. An addition has
been constructed at the front right corner of the existing house. A plot plan submitted by a
licensed surveyor, a site plan provided by the applicant, and pictures of the addition are
included in this staff report. Staff is concerned that the building addition has the appearance
of a commercial structure. The BZA should discuss the appearance of the building
addition and determine whether it is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and
whether it changes the character of the existing dwelling.
(4) The home occupation shall be incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the
dwelling unit. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of a residential
dwelling unit and accessory structure, if used as part of the home occupation, shall be
devoted to the home occupation. In the event the home occupation is to be conducted
totally from within an accessory structure, no more than five hundred square feet of
area may be devoted to such home occupation. No more than one home occupation
shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit and any related accessory structure;
The applicant meets these requirements. Per the licensed surveyor, the home addition is
274.1 square-feet and residential portion of the home is 2290.5 square-feet. Therefore,
approximately 12% of the total square-footage of the residential dwelling unit, including
the addition, is proposed by the applicant to be devoted to the home occupation.
(5) No mechanical or electrical equipment may be used in a residential dwelling unit or
accessory structure in connection with a home occupation except such types as are
customary for domestic, household, or hobby purposes; personal computers and
facsimile machines may be used. Machinery that causes noise likely to be heard by
neighbors or interference with radio or television reception shall be prohibited;
The applicant understands this requirement. Standard hair salon equipment, such as a hair
dryer and a hair-washing sink, will be used.
(6) There shall be no storage outside a principal building or accessory structure of
equipment or materials used in connection with the home occupation;
The applicant understands this requirement; no outdoor storage is proposed.
(7) There shall be adequate provision for any traffic generated by such home occupation
including off-street parking if required by the BZA;
Staff believes there will be adequate parking on-site for the traffic generated by this
business. There is an existing parking area to the rear of the house. In addition, the
applicant has added a 405 square-foot off-street parking area in front of the house
specifically for use by the hair salon customers.
(8) Group instruction in connection with the home occupation may be permitted subject
to approval by the BZA. For the purposes of this subsection, instruction shall be
group instruction if it involves more than two students at any time. The BZA may
place a maximum number of students that may be on-site at any time and may
establish limitations on the frequency of such group instruction.
This is not applicable to this application, as the applicant does not propose to conduct any
group instruction.
(9) The following activities and land uses shall not be permitted as home occupations:
automotive repair (body or mechanical), upholstery or painting; kennels; taxi service;
gun dealers; or, charter bus service;
This is not applicable to this application, as the applicant does not propose any of the home
occupations listed above to be conducted at her residence.
(10) The BZA may require additional standards in order to assure the compatibility of the
home occupation with other property in the vicinity of the home occupation and to
assure the residential character of the neighborhood is maintained.
The applicant understands this provision.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) Customer visits shall be by appointment only.
2) No more than one customer at a time shall visit the home-based business and there shall
be no overlapping appointments.
3) Any proposed signage shall comply with the Zoning and Sign Ordinances, shall be
attached to the home, shall not exceed 3 square-feet, and shall be subject to any
applicable permitting requirements.
4) The business shall open only on Tuesdays thru Saturdays and it shall open no earlier than
8:30 AM and shall close no later than 5:30 PM.
The applicant will be in attendance to respond to any questions the Board may have.
Attached Exhibits
A. Application
B. Letter from applicant
C. Site Photos
D. Plot Plan
E. Floor Plan
Attachment A: Application
Attachment B: Letter from applicant
Attachment C: Site Photos
Facing Southeast – Street View
Facing South ‐ Close
Facing Southeast
Gravel Off‐Street Parking
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
APRIL22, 2020
PROJECT PLANNER: JAFAR WARE
Application: Z-20-009
Location: 700 County Farm Road (Tax Map 136, Group A, Parcel 01300)
Applicant: Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Believers Tabernacle,
Inc.
Owner: Believers Tabernacle, Inc.
Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (RS-15)
Requests: A special use permit for the expansion of an existing institutional group assembly
use (a church). The proposed expansion consists of the construction of a parking
lot.
Overview of Request
Believers Tabernacle, Inc. is requesting a special use permit for the expansion of an existing
institutional group assembly use (a church) at 700 County Farm Road with an additional parking
lot with 26 parking spaces. No building additions are proposed with this request. The parking lot
addition will be used to accommodate the growing congregation. The church has acquired
additional land to the west of its existing facilities for this parking lot expansion. It is currently
developed with a non-compliant gravel parking lot, which was established without City approval.
It is currently in violation, and the proposed parking lot improvements will rectify that violation.
The subject property is zoned RS-15 (Residential Single-Family 15). It is adjacent to RS-12
(Residential Single-Family 12) zoning to the southwest (the Chestnut Hill single-family residential
subdivision), RS-10 (Residential Single-Family 10) zoning to the north (the Stevens Bend single-
family residential subdivision), and unincorporated land east of the church property. According
to the applicant, the sanctuary holds 148 seats, and according to the site plan, the sanctuary holds
160 seats. There are 29 existing parking spaces shown on the site plan submitted by the applicant.
In accordance with Chart 2 of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a church use in
an RS-15 zone requires a special use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Relevant Zoning Ordinance Sections
Chart 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance allows churches as a special use in the RS-
15 district. Special provisions are set forth for institutional group assembly uses in Section
9(D)(2)(zz) in addition to the Standards of General Applicability in Section 9(C). The applicant
has affirmed in his special use permit application letter that the proposed use will be constructed
in compliance with all zoning requirements.
The applicable standards are listed below with information from Staff on how the applicant intends
to address them.
Standards of General Applicability with Staff analysis:
1) The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon
adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility
facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare:
No adverse impact regarding the above-referenced items will be associated with this proposed
use in Staff’s opinion, provided that the appropriate screening is in place to mitigate any
negative impacts on the residential lot to the west. Staff recommends a 12’-wide Type C
landscape buffer with a 6’-tall privacy fence as the appropriate screening.
2) The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as to be
compatible with the immediate vicinity and not to interfere with the development and
use of adjacent property in accordance with the applicable district regulations:
It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed parking lot addition will be compatible with the adjacent
uses, provided that the appropriate screening is in place to mitigate any negative impacts on
the residential lot to the west. Staff recommends a 12’-wide Type C landscape buffer with a
6’-tall privacy fence as the appropriate screening.
3) The proposed buildings or use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, parking spaces, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
fire protection, water and sewers; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the
establishment of the proposed use will provide adequately for such services:
Church parking requires 1 parking spot for every 8 fixed or mobile seats in the auditorium or
sanctuary or largest place of assembly within the facility. The proposed addition will add
parking to the property increasing its already-compliant parking facilities. Staff does not
anticipate a strain on other utilities or services as a result of the parking lot addition.
4) The proposed building or use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any
feature determined by the BZA to be significant natural, scenic, or historic importance:
No features of significant natural, scenic, or historic importance have been identified on the
subject property in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot expansion.
5) The proposed building or use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the particular provision of this section authorizing such use:
The applicant indicates that the proposed use will comply with the additional standards for
institutional group assembly uses. (See below for additional detail.)
Additional Standards for Institutional Group Assembly Uses with Staff Analysis:
(1) Parking areas shall be designed and arranged so that backing from the site onto a
public right-of-way will not be necessary and adequate space will be available for
vehicles to turn around on-site. An on-site off-street area shall be provided for
vehicles to load and unload passengers. Parking areas shall not be permitted in
the required front yard;
The proposed parking spaces will not back into public right-of-way and there is
already an area for loading and unloading on-site on the adjacent church parcel to the
east. Proposed parking is shown on the site plan to be located within the required
front yard. All parking in the required front yard in the proposed parking lot addition
must be removed from the plan in order to comply with this requirement.
(2) In all residential districts an institutional group assembly use shall have a lot size
not less than three times the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district
where the institutional group assembly use is proposed to be located. In the event
the institutional group assembly use is proposed to be located on land that has
two or more different zoning classifications, the minimum lot size shall be
calculated by applying the larger required minimum lot size;
According to the site plan, the property totals 1.44 acres, or approximately 62,726
square-feet, which is greater than the 45,000 square-foot minimum for a church in the
RS-15 zone.
(3) On-site lighting for parking areas, fields for athletics, scoreboards, and grounds
shall be arranged in such a manner as to minimize intrusion of lighting into areas
zoned or used for residential or medical purposes. To this end, a plan depicting
the proposed location of on-site exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for
review by staff and the BZA. Such plan shall depict the arrangement of the
lighting fixtures, their height, their specifications, and the direction in which
lighting will be oriented. Additional information may be required by the staff or
the BZA in order to verify whether the lighting will be intrusive into areas zoned
or used for residential or medical purposes;
The site will comply with City lighting standards so as to not allow more than 0.5
footcandles at the property line. A photometric lighting plan has been submitted to
demonstrate compliance with this minimum requirement. Two new parking lot
lighting fixtures are proposed.
(4) Applications for an institutional group assembly use shall indicate the proposed
locations of garbage dumpsters or receptacles. These shall be located in such a
manner as to minimize adverse affects upon neighboring properties and
aesthetics from the public right-of-way. The use of dumpsters may be prohibited
in the event the BZA determines that such would have a detrimental effect upon
the adjacent property;
The applicant has not proposed to add any new garbage receptacles with this parking
lot addition.
(5) Areas for outdoor recreational use or outdoor group activities shall be screened
or fenced in such a manner as to provide an effective buffer for adjacent uses.
Screening shall be required pursuant to Section 27 of this article or as required
by the BZA;
No new areas for outdoor recreational use have been proposed with this parking lot
expansion.
(6) The number of required parking spaces provided on-site shall be in accordance
with Chart 4 of this article provided, however, if the applicant can present
evidence satisfactory to the BZA that a substantial portion of the expected users
will arrive at the institutional group assembly use by bus, bicycle, walking, or by
car pooling or that off-street parking areas on adjacent or nearby properties will
be available on a long term basis, the BZA shall have authority to determine the
number of required parking spaces to be provided on-site. The BZA may require
that a reserve area be retained on-site for future expansions of the parking area;
Based on the number of seats in the auditorium (160), twenty parking spaces are
required. There are already 29 parking spaces on the adjacent church lot. The
proposed increase in parking will further exceed the required amount on-site.
(7) An application for a special use permit for an institutional group assembly use
shall be accompanied by a description of uses or activities proposed for the
facility which may be subject to separate regulation or which may result in
unusual traffic patterns, traffic volumes, or other detrimental impacts upon
adjacent properties, including but not necessarily limited to those uses which
would require a special permit if not a part of the institutional group assembly
use;
The church is used at the following times:
Sunday Bible Study 10:00 am
Worship Services 11:00 am
Wednesday Worship Service 7:00 pm
The applicant has not indicated any additional activities that would warrant any
additional action or consideration by the BZA.
(8) the BZA shall have authority to approve an on-site location with water, sewer,
and electric utility connections for accommodations for travel trailers or R.V.s
(recreational vehicles) for use by visiting or traveling speakers or guests
associated with the institutional group assembly use. Provided, however, such
location for travel trailers or R.V.s shall not be permitted for use as a permanent
residential dwelling unit;
The applicant does not propose installing any water, sewer, or electrical utility
connections for travel trailers or RVs with this application.
(9) the BZA shall have the authority to grant variances to the standards imposed by
this subsection for temporary or short term uses of property for the institutional
group assembly use purposes. In such cases, the BZA may impose conditions of
approval to assure the compatibility of the short-term land use with other
property in the vicinity of the proposed use; and
The applicant does not propose requesting approval for any short-term uses or
variances for this development with this application.
(10) the application for a special use permit for an institutional group assembly use
shall indicate any intentions for the use of systems for the external broadcast of
speech, music, or other sounds. If such are proposed, the applicant shall indicate
the times of day and duration of their proposed use. The BZA shall have the
authority to place restrictions upon their use in order to minimize excessive noise
from intruding upon neighboring properties especially those zoned or used for
residential purposes. In no event shall the BZA approve the use of such which
would be in violation of the City Code or ordinances regulating noise. BZA
approval does not constitute a waiver of any City Code or ordinances regulating
noise.
The church facility does not use carillons, bells, chimes, or electronic speakers that
produce sounds that would disturb neighboring properties and it does not propose any
such activity with this application.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) The applicant shall submit a site plan for review and approval in accordance with the
regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
2) A subdivision plat combining the church parcel and the lot with the parking lot expansion
shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the site work permit.
3) The site plan shall be revised to remove parking spaces from the required front yard.
4) A Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence shall be provided along the west property line as
far south as the southern limits of the proposed parking lot.
Attached Exhibits
A. Application
B. Letter from applicant
C. Site photos
D. Site Plan Set
Attachment A: Application
Attachment B: Letter from Applicant
Attachment C: Site Photos
Street view
Street view
Facing North
Facing East
Facing West
STEVENS
BEND DRIVE SITE
COU
NTY
FAR
M ROA
D
C:\Land Project 3\sbend4\dwg\BELIEVERS TABERNACLE MAR2020.dwg, ACAD108, PDF Complete,
1:30
STEVENS
BEND DRIVE
COU
NTY
FAR
M ROA
D
C:\Land Project 3\sbend4\dwg\BELIEVERS TABERNACLE MAR2020.dwg, ACAD108, PDF Complete,
1:30
STEVENS
BEND DRIVE
COU
NTY
FAR
M ROA
D
C:\Land Project 3\sbend4\dwg\BELIEVERS TABERNACLE MAR2020.dwg, ACAD108, PDF Complete,
1:30
STEVENS
BEND DRIVE
COU
NTY
FAR
M ROA
D
PLANT MATERIAL LIST
SHRUBS & TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT ROOT
9 BS Buxus sempervirens Boxwood 24inches Cont Compact evergreen shrub
1 LT Liriodendrum tulipifera Tulip Poplar 4"cal. Cont 5'CLEAR TRUNK,SINGLE,STRAIGHT CENTRAL LEADER, FULL CANOPY
1 LT Liriodendrum tulipifera Tulip Poplar 3"cal. Cont 5'CLEAR TRUNK,SINGLE,STRAIGHT CENTRAL LEADER, FULL CANOPY
5 LT Liriodendrum tulipifera Tulip Poplar 221"cal. Cont 5'CLEAR TRUNK,SINGLE,STRAIGHT CENTRAL LEADER, FULL CANOPY
6'tall
40 JV Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Cont Evergreen Tree
at planting
20 ICR Ilex cornuta rotunda Chinese Holly 24inches Cont Compact evergreen shrub
C:\Land Project 3\sbend4\dwg\BELIEVERS TABERNACLE MAR2020.dwg, ACAD108, PDF Complete,
1:30
STEVENS
BEND DRIVE
COU
NTY
FAR
M ROA
D
C:\Land Project 3\sbend4\dwg\BELIEVERS TABERNACLE MAR2020.dwg, ACAD108, PDF Complete,
1:30
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 22, 2020
PROJECT PLANNER: BRAD BARBEE
Application: Z-20-010
Location: 711 North Maney Avenue
Applicant: Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for the South Central
Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists
Owner: South Central Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists
Zoning: RS-8 and RM-12
Request: To amend a special use permit that was approved in May 2019 for the expansion
of an existing institutional group assembly use (a church). The proposed
expansion consists of a building addition at the rear of the existing church
building. This amendment seeks to modify the design and footprint of the
proposed building addition that was approved in May 2019.
Overview of Request
The South Central Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists requests an amendment to
a special use permit originally issued in May 2019 for the expansion of an existing institutional
group assembly use (a church) located at 711 North Maney Avenue, just to the south of Oaklands
Mansion and Park. In this request, a 2,898 square-foot building addition is proposed at the rear of
the existing church building. The addition consists of an expansion to the auditorium and
fellowship hall as well as a new kitchen, bathrooms, and classrooms. The subject property is
located in Residential Single-Family District (RS-8) and Residential Multi-Family District (RM-
12) zones. It is bordered by single-family residential property to the north and south, multi-family
residential property to the west, and North Maney Avenue to the east. The May 2019 special use
permit included a 2,123 square-foot addition, which was never constructed. Since that time, the
church has reconfigured the proposed addition. Because it is substantially different from what was
represented to the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2019, an amendment to the 2019 special use permit
is required. The plans considered by the Board in 2019 have been included in the agenda materials
for reference.
Relevant Zoning Ordinance Sections
Chart 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance allows institutional group assembly uses
as a special use in the RS-8 district. City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance Section 9(D)(zz) sets
forth standards for institutional group assembly uses in addition to the Standards of General
Applicability in Section 9(C).
The applicable standards are listed below with information from Staff on how the applicant intends
to address them. After reviewing the criteria for the special use requirements for institutional
group assembly uses, this project appears to meet the criteria.
Standards of General Applicability with Staff analysis:
1. That the proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon
adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, and
utility facilitates, and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare.
It is Staff’s opinion that this expansion will have minimal impact on the character of the
neighborhood, or the other items listed above, provided that appropriate screening is in place
and appropriate building materials are used. Staff recommends that a Type C buffer with a 6’
privacy fence be required along the north property line as well as adjacent to the property
located at 638 Courtland Street. Staff also recommends the Board require the applicant to
utilize the board and batten fiber cement siding that is depicted on the elevations submitted.
2. That the proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged and operated so as to be
compatible with the immediate vicinity and not to interfere with the development and
use of adjacent property in accordance with the applicable district regulations.
It is Staff’s opinion that the expansion will be compatible with the immediate vicinity, provided
that appropriate screening is in place and appropriate building materials are used. Staff
recommends that a Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence be required along the north property
line as well as adjacent to the property located at 638 Courtland Street. Staff also recommends
the Board require the applicant to utilize the board and batten fiber cement siding that is
depicted on the elevations submitted.
3. That the proposed buildings or use will be served adequately by essential public facilities
and services such as highways, streets, parking spaces, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, fire protection, water and sewers; or persons or agencies responsible would
provide such services.
It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed expansion will have minimal impact on the above items.
4. That the proposed building or use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of
any feature determined by the BZA to be significant natural, scenic, or historic
importance.
Neither Staff nor the applicant are aware of any such features associated with this property.
5. That the proposed building/use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the particular provision of this section authorizing use.
The proposed use will comply with the additional standards for institutional group assembly
uses. (See below for additional detail.)
Additional Standards for Institutional Group Assembly Uses with Staff Analysis:
Institutional group assembly uses shall be subject to the following additional standards:
[1] Parking areas shall be designed and arranged so that backing from the site onto a
public right-of-way will not be necessary and adequate space will be available for vehicles
to turn around on-site. An on-site off-street area shall be provided for vehicles to load
and unload passengers. Parking areas shall not be permitted in the required front yard;
No parking requiring vehicles to back out onto public right-of-way is existing or
proposed. The request depicts adequate off-street area for parking and for vehicles
to load and unload. There are existing parking spaces that encroach into the
required front yard (i.e., the required front setback). However, no new parking
areas are proposed within the required front yard.
[2] In all residential districts an institutional group assembly use shall have a lot size not
less than three times the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district where the
institutional group assembly use is proposed to be located. In the event the institutional
group assembly use is proposed to be located on land that has two or more different
zoning classifications, the minimum lot size shall be calculated by applying the larger
required minimum lot size;
The property is zoned RS-8 and RM-12 and consists of approximately 0.86 acres
or ~37,461 square-feet. The minimum lot size required in the RS-8 district is 8,000
square-feet, so the minimum lot size for an institutional group assembly use in an
RS-8 zone is 24,000 square-feet. The minimum lot size for properties located in
the RM-12 district is 7,500 square feet, so the minimum lot size required in an RM-
12 district is 22,500. The subject property meets this requirement for both districts.
[3] On-site lighting for parking areas, fields for athletics, scoreboards, and grounds shall
be arranged in such a manner as to minimize intrusion of lighting into areas zoned or
used for residential or medical purposes. To this end, a plan depicting the proposed
location of on-site exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for review by staff and the
BZA. Such plan shall depict the arrangement of the lighting fixtures, their height, their
specifications, and the direction in which lighting will be oriented. Additional
information may be required by the staff or the BZA in order to verify whether the
lighting will be intrusive into areas zoned or used for residential or medical purposes;
According the applicant, there are no plans to alter the existing site lighting.
Additional lighting may be needed, however, to illuminate non-defensible spaces,
such as parking areas and walkways. If it is determined that additional lighting is
needed, then it will be required to adhere to all lighting standards found in the
Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines.
[4] Applications for an institutional group assembly use shall indicate the proposed
locations of garbage dumpsters or receptacles. These facilities shall be located in such a
manner as to minimize adverse effects upon neighboring properties and aesthetics from
the public right-of-way. The use of dumpsters may be prohibited in the event the BZA
determines that such would have a detrimental effect upon the adjacent property;
According to the submitted site plan, a proposed solid waste cart storage area is
located behind the building and will not be easily visible from the public right-of-
way or adjacent properties. The site plan depicts that this cart storage area will be
enclosed within a masonry wall.
[5] Areas for outdoor recreational use or outdoor group activities shall be screened or
fenced in such a manner as to provide an effective buffer for adjacent uses. Screening
shall be required pursuant to Section 27 of this article or as required by the BZA;
According to the applicant, no outdoor recreation areas are associated with this
addition.
[6] The number of required parking spaces provided on-site shall be in accordance with
Chart 4 of this article provided, however, if the applicant can present evidence
satisfactory to the BZA that a substantial portion of the expected users will arrive at the
institutional group assembly use by bus, bicycle, walking, or by carpooling or that off-
street parking areas on adjacent or nearby properties will be available on a long term
basis, the BZA shall have authority to determine the number of required parking spaces
to be provided on-site. The BZA may require that a reserve area be retained on-site for
future expansions of the parking area;
Chart 4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for every 8 seats in the main
worship center. According to the applicant’s letter, the church is not increasing the
size of the worship center. However, the building plans indicate a 650 square-foot
expansion of the worship center space and the site plan indicates that 30 additional
seats will be added. After reviewing the increase in seating, the site is currently
providing adequate parking spaces to support the addition. No additional parking
spaces are required.
[7] an application for a special use permit for an institutional group assembly use shall
be accompanied by a description of uses or activities proposed for the facility which may
be subject to separate regulation or which may result in unusual traffic patterns, traffic
volumes, or other detrimental impacts upon adjacent properties, including but not
necessarily limited to those uses which would require a special permit if not a part of the
institutional group assembly use;
According to the applicant, the service times are Sunday at 9:15 am and 11:00 am.
The applicant has not indicated any additional activities that would warrant any
additional action or consideration.
[8] the BZA shall have authority to approve an on-site location with water, sewer, and
electric utility connections for accommodations for travel trailers or R.V.s (recreational
vehicles) for use by visiting or traveling speakers or guests associated with the
institutional group assembly use. Provided, however, such location for travel trailers or
R.V.s shall not be permitted for use as a permanent residential dwelling unit;
According to the applicant, the church does not intend to install any water, sewer,
or electrical utility connections for travel trailers or RV’s.
[9] the BZA shall have the authority to grant variances to the standards imposed by this
subsection for temporary or short term uses of property for the institutional group
assembly use purposes. In such cases, the BZA may impose conditions of approval to
assure the compatibility of the short-term land use with other property in the vicinity of
the proposed use; and
According to the applicant, the church is not requesting approval for any
variances or short-term land uses on site at this time.
[10] the application for a special use permit for an institutional group assembly use shall
indicate any intentions for the use of systems for the external broadcast of speech, music,
or other sounds. If such are proposed, the applicant shall indicate the times of day and
duration of their proposed use. The BZA shall have the authority to place restrictions
upon their use in order to minimize excessive noise from intruding upon neighboring
properties especially those zoned or used for residential purposes. In no event shall the
BZA approve the use of such which would be in violation of the City Code or ordinances
regulating noise. BZA approval does not constitute a waiver of any City Code or
ordinances regulating noise. The applicant attests that the use will comply with this
standard.
According to the applicant, the proposed church facility does not use carillons,
bells, chimes, or electronic speakers that produce sounds that would disturb
neighboring properties.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
2) A Type C buffer with a 6’ privacy fence shall be installed along the north property line and
along the common property line with 638 Courtland Street. The Type C buffer shall
maintain the required 12’ width except where shown on the attached landscape plan.
3) The exterior material of the proposed addition shall consist of board and batten fiber
cement siding as depicted on the attached architectural elevations.
4) The solid waste enclosure shall consist of a masonry wall.
The applicant will be in attendance to respond to any questions the Board may have.
Attached Exhibits
1) BZA Application
2) Applicant Letter
3) Site Photos
4) Site Plan Set and Architectural Elevations from current submittal
5) Site Plan and Architectural Elevations from 2019 submittal
1. BZA Application
2. Applicant Letter
3. Site Photos
Front of Building
Front of Building
Rear of Property
Current submittal
Current submittal
Current submittal
Current submittal
Current submittal
Current submittal
Current submittal
2019 submittal
METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF OVER NEW ADDITION AND OVER EXISTING ROOF (FELLOWSHIP HALL AND KITCHEN)
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
711 NORTH MANEY AVENUE
FRONT ELEVATION
2019 submittal
METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF OVER NEW ADDITION AND OVER EXISTING ROOF (FELLOWSHIP HALL AND KITCHEN)
ROOF SLOPES FROM FRONT TO BACK
ALL NEW ADDITION SIDING BRICK TO MATCH AREA ON REAR AS ON FRONT
VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN HARDY BOARD
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
711 NORTH MANEY AVENUE
REAR ELEVATION
2019 submittal
METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF OVER NEW ADDITION AND OVER EXISTING ROOF (FELLOWSHIP HALL AND KITCHEN)
EXISTING METAL ROOF TO STAY AS CURRENTLY IS
ALL NEW ADDITION SIDING
VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN HARDY BOARD
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
711 NORTH MANEY AVENUE
RIGHT ELEVATION
2019 submittal
METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF OVER NEW ADDITION AND OVER EXISTING ROOF (FELLOWSHIP HALL AND KITCHEN)
EXISTING METAL ROOF TO STAY AS CURRENTLY IS
ROOF SLOPES FROM FRONT TO BACK
ALL NEW ADDITION SIDING
VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN HARDY BOARD
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
711 NORTH MANEY AVENUE
LEFT ELEVATION
2019 submittal
2019 submittal
Get email alerts for Murfreesboro
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.