Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page 4-- January 25, 2006 Permit-- Condition limits event permit for one year to enable review Landowner claims one-year limit unjustified Citation: Demonbreun v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, No. M2004-O2402-COA-R3-CV (2005) TENNESSEE (12/07/05) -- Demonbreun used his Nashville home as a "Historic Home Events" site for weddings, parties, and other special functions. In 1999, he applied to the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception permi~ After a hearing, the board granted Demonbreun a special exception permit to use his residentially zoned property as a special event site. However, the permit was good only for one year. The board claimed that this would allow it to reevaluate continuously the use of the property. In 2000, the board ~m'anted the permit again, but in 2001, the board denied the permit application because of neighborhood complaints. Demonbreun continued to hold events, and he eventually was served with a ceuse-and-desist order. In 2002, Demonbreun applied for a permit again. This time, the application was approved. However, it still contained the one-year limitation. Demonbreun sued, claiming that the one-year limit was unjustified. The. court ruled in his favor. The board appealed, ar~ing that the one-year condition was supported by substantial evidence. DECISION: Reversed. The condition providing that the permit was "for a period of time not to exceed one year" was supported by mater/al evidence. In addition to presenting evidence regarding noise, traffic, and parking problems caused by Demonbreun's events, there was testimony, charts, letters, and emails reflecting Demonbreun's previous noncompliance with permit con- ditions and h/s continued operation after the board's denial in 2001. Neighbors claimed that the noise kept their children up at night, and that intoxicated guests roamed the neighborhood. Neighbors also complained of very loud bands, microphones in the front yard, and a continuous stream of vehicles entering and exiting the property on event hights. Evidence also established that Demonbreun continued to hold parties after he was served with a cease-and-desist notice in 2002. Finally, Demonbreun admitted that he violated certain permit conditions and also acknowledged that he had operated bis facili~ without a permit for a period of time. In light of Demonbreun's documented history of noncompliance and the continued complaints by neighboring residents, the board could reasonably con- clude that a review of the permit every 12 months was necessary and appropriate. see also:.Lafferry v. City of Winchester, 46 S. W. 2d 752 (2000). see also: MC Props Inc. v. City of Chartanooga,. 994 S. W..2d 132 (1999). 134 © 2006 Ouintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prol~ibited. For more [nfonmatJon please c,a. II (617) 5424048.