Friday Recap June 26th, 2026 Correction

I got several names wrong on my original June 26th post, and they are in bold type.

Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals June 25th

Overview

• A Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on 7 variance requests for a proposed 11-lot major conservation subdivision at 4655 Harpeth Peytonsville Road ended without a decision — the board voted to continue the public hearing
• A critical procedural issue emerged: 5 of the 7 variances fall on a parcel owned by Richard Sack, who never authorized the application and is opposed — Kristi Ransom (legal council for the county) argued the board has no authority to act on those variances
• Both county commissioners for the second district (Judy Herbert and Betsy Hester) asked the board to deny the variances
• Multiple neighbors raised serious flooding and erosion concerns, citing the 2010 flood and ongoing creek degradation from upstream development
• The board's suggested path forward is to defer at least a month to resolve the property authority issue and clarify the plan

Variance requests overview

• The application seeks 7 variances across 3 articles: Article 14 (resource protection — steep slopes and open space buffer), Article 12 (open space requirements), and Article 13 (steep topography and slippery soil protection standards)
• The variances are intended to allow construction of an 11-lot major conservation subdivision on multiple parcels along Harpeth Pateonsville Road (Map 144 parcel 0701; Map 155 parcels 0151, 0152, 0150, 0153, 0154)

Site conditions and justification

• Alison Collin (T Square Engineering) argued most variances stem from existing conditions, not new disturbance — particularly on parcel 1502, where the home and lot have long existed and are simply being incorporated into the subdivision for private road access
• The steep slopes bisect the property, making rear access impossible without crossing them — the applicant is proposing the crossing at what they believe is the minimum disturbance point, at roughly a 90-degree angle to the stream bank as required by TDEC
• The applicant stated no new driveway, tree removal, or disturbance is proposed on the existing lot — the stream buffer and steep slopes on that parcel are proposed to be fully preserved

Commissioner opposition

• Judy Herbert (county commissioner, second district) asked the board to deny all variances, saying the property is not suitable for that many homes given the number of variances required
• Betsy Hester (county commissioner, second district) also asked for denial, raising concerns about setbacks, open space, steep topography, slippery soil protection, and downstream drainage — she specifically questioned what happens to people downstream

Neighbor flooding and erosion concerns

• Beth Neumann (4665 Harpeth Peytonsville Road) said upstream development over 16 years has already eroded Harpeth Creek behind her house, and a bulldozed strip of woods last year sent debris flooding her backyard pasture — she asked the board to minimize the number of homes approved
• Doug Sadler (4650 Gander Branch) said a concrete bridge with no sides is their only access, and it floods every time there's heavy rain — he noted the creek already runs dirty from upstream erosion and asked the board to consider where runoff from 10–11 new homes will go
• Multiple neighbors referenced the 2010 flood, which reached their homes, as a baseline — they're concerned more development will make it worse

Authority to grant variances on Sack's property

• Kristi Ransom raised that 5 of the 7 variances are located on Sack's parcel, which Sack did not authorize, nor notified and is actively opposing
• Kristi Ransom (Legal Council for the County) stated that the zoning ordinance limits who can file variance applications, and since Sack hasn't authorized this request, the board has no authority to act on those 5 variances — only the 1 variance on the applicant's own property is properly before the board
• Huntly Gordon (applicant's representative) argued the parcel was included because it's being incorporated into the subdivision, but Ransom held that inclusion in a plan doesn't substitute for the property owner's authorization

Decision to continue public hearing

• The board voted to continue (not close) the public hearing to allow time to resolve the property authority issue and any plan changes
• Ransom suggested deferring at least a month — keeping the hearing open so neighbors can comment on whatever changes are made to the plan