A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board approves setback variance for 736 Clear Circle after applicant says contractor told her no permit was needed

June 18, 2026 | Smyrna, Rutherford County, Tennessee


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board approves setback variance for 736 Clear Circle after applicant says contractor told her no permit was needed
At its June 2026 meeting the Smyrna Board of Zoning Appeals approved a setback variance for the property at 736 Clear Circle so a 20-by-20 covered patio that was built without permits can remain.

Staff presented the application and told the board the applicant seeks a reduction of the required front setback from 35 feet to about 26 feet and a rear setback reduction from 20 feet to 13 feet so the existing attached patio complies with the ordinance. Mitch, a town planning staff member, said code enforcement discovered the structure while investigating an unrelated matter and that "the structure was completed in 2024 without permits applied for by the applicant or contractor." Staff noted the lot is a corner parcel and therefore must meet two front setbacks, which constrains the rear yard and informed the board's hardship analysis.

Applicant Erica Coronado addressed the board and said she purchased the house in August 2021 and hired a contractor to expand an existing deck. Coronado said she asked the contractor whether she needed to do anything to comply with the city and was told, in her account, that "no, no, no, everything is good." She told the board she did not request the contractor's insurance documentation at the time.

Board members said they have seen similar requests for patios and above-ground pools on corner lots and expressed sympathy for Coronado, saying the patio is mostly hidden behind a fence and is not an "eyesore." One board member framed the owner’s difficulty as resulting from the corner-lot setback requirement and said the hardship basis for approval was the lot configuration. Several members also said the meeting transcript reflects wider concerns about contractor accountability but noted that enforcement action against contractors was not before the board.

A motion to approve the variance "based on the hardship of a corner lot" was made and seconded; the request was approved by voice vote (no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript).

Next steps: the variance approval legalizes the existing structure provided any permitting and record updates required by town processes are completed; the board did not record any further conditions in the transcript.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee