County drops appeal over zoning case

There are 2 comments on the The Tennessean story from Oct 24, 2012, titled County drops appeal over zoning case. In it, The Tennessean reports that:

Cheatham County will not appeal a 2010 decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a single-wide mobile home to be placed on a 2.5-acre lot in the Joelton area even though the minimum requirement was five acres.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Tennessean.

the owners

Antioch, TN

#1 Oct 25, 2012
We were told that the property was 'grandfathered' when we purchased it. The only issue was the width of the easement, and that issue had been settled in November 2009, and was NOT appealed, so there was at that time no opposition and no reason to believe there was any problem with redeveloping the property.
Then the adjoining neighbor made his opposition known, with complaints and fabricated accusations against us, and private meetings with the Mayor to plead his case. The adjoining property owner was successful in persuading the Mayor to take up his fight.
It was the Mayor that declared there was NO grandfather provision, and the Mayor who personally revoked the building permit and started this circus.
The Mayor decided the county needed to 'follow procedure' and 'get rid of the good ole boy way of doing things'. We were treated like criminals, refused a meeting to discuss the problems, and then sued for over two years, and denied any use of the property, meanwhile crippling us financially. We paid two mortgages, one on a home that should have been sold or rented by now, and no ability to refinance because 'pending property litigation' prevents refinance.
The County's case was VERY questionable from the beginning without this resolution. Why did the Mayor refuse to meet with us? Why did the Mayor sue their own Board of Zoning Appeals without presenting arguements to the Board??? Why did the County demote the Building Commissioner, and replace her with an appointee from the Planning Commission?(this is considered a conflict of interest by the American Planners Association, as a 'planning commissioner' duties involve considering new development and new laws to regulate it; whereas a 'building commissioner' has the duty to fairly enforce the existing laws without bias)..... Why did the County deny the Board of Zoning Appeals representation and defense in Chancery Court? Why did the County delay the case again and again? If the County had allowed the Building Commissioner to defend her decision, and allowed the Board of Zoning Appeals to research the case and secure legal representation for the case, this 'piece of paper' may have been found LONG AGO.
Why did the Commissioners not speak up? One of the commissioners for that district (Lou Ann Jarreau) voted for the grandfather provision in 1991! Yet she voted to pursue this case. The other second district commissioner (Rob Myers) was forwarded enough information from me to know this case was questionable, yet did NOTHING to help, and further voted twice to prosecute us.
Now the County finds this piece of paper, says everything is OK, and dismisses??? I don't think so. Isn't it ironic that the Mayor does not want citizens to own mobile homes, but feels it is suitable for the Building Commission to work out of one? And, that the process of moving the Building Commission to the mobile home is how this 'piece of paper' was found?
The other irony??? That us winning our arguement would have made it legal for the adjoining property owner to replace his mobile home....but this 'found' amendment excludes non-conforming lots that are adjacent to other non-conforming lots owned by the same property owner! Therefore the adjoining property owner could not buy the lot and build unless he combined lots to make one conforming property. This is exactly what he has been told for years!
Maanwhile the adjoining property owner makes it obvious in his statements to the media that it was the EASEMENT ruling that he opposes. The EASEMENT ruling was decided in November 2009, and if he opposed it, he should have appealed it! Instead, he convinces the Mayor to subvert the statute of limitations so he can get another chance to dispute the property rights.
This is delayed justice, and incomplete justice. Therefore, this case is not done. Not by a long shot.
the owners

Antioch, TN

#2 Oct 25, 2012
We were told that the property was 'grandfathered' when we purchased it. The only issue was the width of the easement, and that issue had been settled in November 2009, and was NOT appealed, so there was at that time no opposition and no reason to believe there was any problem with redeveloping the property.

It was the Mayor that declared there was NO grandfather provision, and the Mayor who personally revoked the building permit and started this circus.

The Mayor decided the county needed to 'follow procedure' and 'get rid of the good ole boy way of doing things'. We were treated like criminals, refused a meeting to discuss the problems, and then sued for over two years, and denied any use of the property, meanwhile crippling us financially. We paid two mortgages, one on a home that should have been sold or rented by now, and no ability to refinance because 'pending property litigation' prevents refinance.

The County's case was VERY questionable from the beginning without this resolution. Why did the Mayor refuse to meet with us? Why did the Mayor sue their own Board of Zoning Appeals without presenting arguements to the Board??? Why did the County demote the Building Commissioner, and replace her with an appointee from the Planning Commission?(this is considered a conflict of interest by the American Planners Association, as a 'planning commissioner' duties involve considering new development and new laws to regulate it; whereas a 'building commissioner' has the duty to fairly enforce the existing laws without bias)..... Why did the County deny the Board of Zoning Appeals representation and defense in Chancery Court? Why did the County delay the case again and again? If the County had allowed the Building Commissioner to defend her decision, and allowed the Board of Zoning Appeals to research the case and secure legal representation for the case, this 'piece of paper' may have been found LONG AGO.

Why did the Commissioners not speak up? One of the commissioners for that district (Lou Ann Jarreau) voted for the grandfather provision in 1991! Yet she voted to pursue this case. The other second district commissioner (Rob Myers) was forwarded enough information from me to know this case was questionable, yet did NOTHING to help, and further voted twice to prosecute us.

Now the County finds this piece of paper, says everything is OK, and dismisses??? I don't think so. Isn't it ironic that the Mayor does not want citizens to own mobile homes, but feels it is suitable for the Building Commission to work out of one? And, that the process of moving the Building Commission to the mobile home is how this 'piece of paper' was found?

The other irony??? That us winning our arguement would have made it legal for the adjoining property owner to replace his mobile home....but this 'found' amendment excludes non-conforming lots that are adjacent to other non-conforming lots owned by the same property owner! Therefore the adjoining property owner could not buy the lot and build unless he combined lots to make one conforming property. This is exactly what he has been told for years!

Maanwhile the adjoining property owner makes it obvious in his statements to the media that it was the EASEMENT ruling that he opposes. The EASEMENT ruling was decided in November 2009, and if he opposed it, he should have appealed it! Instead, he convinces the Mayor to subvert the statute of limitations so he can get another chance to dispute the property rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cheatham County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Law Enforcement in TNís 23rd Judicial District ... (Dec '13) Jan '15 old fashioned ame... 2
News Principal sued by parents of child with nut all... Jan '15 seriously 4
News Communication drives Pegram Emergency Managemen... (Mar '14) Oct '14 Fed up with Art 2 5
News Blaze totals Pegram's only grocery store (Feb '14) Feb '14 Jim B 1
Jr. Pro Basketball (Jan '10) Feb '14 mrdurm 9
News Stunned community looks for justiceafter gay te... (Dec '11) Jan '14 Sisile 4
Cheatham County's very own Hitler (Nov '13) Nov '13 WideEyed Willie 1
More from around the web