Shelby Planning Commission approves variance for property in Shoal Creek

A property owner and Shoal Creek resident received planning commission approval for a front yard variance tonight, although it was for less than what he initially asked.

The Shelby County Planning Commission’s decision came after about 40 minutes of back and forth regarding the property owner’s requested set backs and the approval or denial he had received from Shoal Creek.

Property owner James H. Lindsay, who lives in Shoal Creek and owns another Shoal Creek property off of Carnoustie Drive, requested for approval of a front yard variance of 65 feet and a side yard variance of 35 feet, bringing the set backs between the property line and the front and side of his proposed house to 35 feet.

The variance request, planner Josh Cameron said, was to allow the property owner to work around steep terrain on one side of the lot.

Lindsay told the planning commission he received approval for his home design from the Shoal Creek architectural review committee twice. Most recently, however, he discovered he needed a variance for the orientation and placement of his home design, and the architectural review committee denied that request.

He also informed the planning commission that only reducing the setback by 20 feet, bringing it to an 80-foot set back for the front yard, would be sufficient. Senior planner Sharman Brooks said this reduction in the requested variance was permissible.

When Lindsay told the planning commission that he did not know there was a need for a variance, commissioner Jim Davis informed said it wasn’t the planning commission’s responsibility to inform him of those things, and he felt that the planning commission was being asked to adjudicate an issue it had already decided when Shoal Creek’s master plan — including setbacks — was approved.

Multiple planning commissioners asked Lindsay and his engineer Gary Smith if it was possible to design a home to fit the lot, or to reconfigure the position of the house design to fit the lot with its current setbacks. Both said it is possible, but would require extra work including clearing of land, building up land to make up for a 25-foot slope and turning the home in a less desirable direction.

Some asked this question in regard to the county zoning regulations in regard to granting variances. According to those regulations, granting a variation should not take place “merely to serve as a convenience to the applicant.”

Caroline Little, President of Thompson Realty, the developer for Shoal Creek, spoke up in opposition to the application, although she noted that she spoke not as a representative of Thompson Realty or the developer, but as a representative of Shoal Creek Association Board’s interests. Little said she believed previous submissions of the house plan did not have complete information when they were approved, but once all information was known, the need for a variance was addressed.

The board gave the option of a 10-foot variance, bringing the setback down to 90 feet, which Little said were thoughtfully considered decisions. She added that she thinks there is a way to tweak the house plans to fit in the setbacks on the property. Members of the planning commission, including Bill Kinnebrew and chairman Michael O’Kelley also said the believed a home could be designed to fit the current setbacks.

After thorough discussion, commissioner Ken Wilder made a motion to approve the 20-foot variance Lindsay requested during the meeting. It was seconded by commissioner Jim Davis, but before a vote, Little asked how the planning commission’s decision would affect the Shoal Creek covenants.

 Their covenants declare Shoal Creek’s board must approve any variances, she said. County Chief Development Officer Chad Scroggins said the county is not part of the covenants, meaning Shoal Creek could still deny the variance, even if the planning commission approved it.

The planning commission voted with three in favor of Wilder’s motion and four against, meaning the motion was denied.

A new motion was made by O’Kelley, setting a 10-foot variance for the front yard, in addition to a 35-foot setback for the side yard and contingencies for approvals by Shoal Creek. Five commissioners voted in favor, with Wilder against and Davis abstaining. The motion passed.

Also at the meeting, the planning commission voted to continue a case regarding a special district amendment for a property on Dunnavant Valley Road. The planning commission approved a special district, allowing for a rug cleaning business on the property, in May 2016.

As of the time of the meeting, however, the Janify rug cleaning business was not under operation on the property, said planner Christie Pannell-Hester, and there were multiple Airstream trailers — part of a separate business — on the property. It was therefore in violation of its special district, Hester said.

The applicants were requesting an amendment to their special district that would allow for the demolition of existing buildings on the property, construction of two new buildings and operation of multiple businesses on the property. The property would also be subdivided into two lots.

Members of the planning commission said they did not have enough information about the new buildings to make a decision, and voted to continue the case until its Dec. 4 meeting.