The Chatham County Board of Adjustment on Oct. 8 approved a variance allowing a 12-by-12 accessory shed at 73 Swift Pine Circle to remain in its present location, accepting the site diagram submitted with the application as the controlling description of the approved placement.

Applicants Chris and Christie Palin told the board they sought a variance after county staff determined the shed did not meet a 40-foot front setback for corner lots in the zoning ordinance. Christie Palin said the homeowners initially believed the accessory setback should be 25 feet and that the confusion came from how the ordinance defines “front” on a corner lot.

Why it matters: The board’s decision resolves a compliance dispute that began with a complaint and a subsequent inspection. Because the ordinance language about the applicable front yard measurement is ambiguous, the board attached the applicants’ site diagram to the variance rather than specifying a precise distance. That approach was recommended by counsel and county staff to avoid repeated re-litigation over measurements in the current zoning text.

Evidence and arguments: Zoning administrator Angela Plummer summarized the enforcement history: staff received a complaint Nov. 11, 2024, found an unpermitted shed during a Dec. 2 site visit, issued a notice of violation on Jan. 29, 2025, and assessed a $50 civil penalty April 21, 2025 (which the applicants later paid). A variance request was submitted June 3, 2025; staff told the board that either a 15-foot variance (to reach 25 feet from the property line) or a 30-foot variance (to reach 10 feet from the property line) had been described in filings, but the exact requested distance was not consistently stated in the record.

Applicants argued the lot’s corner configuration, septic and well repair areas, pool placement and tree preservation needs left no practical alternative location for the shed, and that moving it would require removing trees and could disturb septic infrastructure. Chris Palin described the structure as a modest, 144-square-foot shed used for garden tools and pool equipment and emphasized that it was sited to avoid sightline or traffic-safety issues.

Board action and conditions: Board counsel TC Morphis recommended — and the board adopted — language that authorized the shed to remain “in its current location as shown on the map submitted with the application.” The motion included two conditions: ordinary maintenance and repair are permitted, and if the structure is removed or destroyed the variance will expire. The motion passed on a recorded vote in favor.

Public comment and neighborhood review: Joshua Minorics, a member of the neighborhood Architectural Review Board (ARB), spoke in support and said the ARB’s concern is architectural compatibility; he said the current ARB members would accept the board’s decision. Staff confirmed notices were mailed to six adjacent properties and a hearing sign had been posted.

Follow-up: Staff indicated the submitted diagram is sufficient for future code enforcement purposes and will be attached to the variance record. The board discussed that pending revisions to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) aim to remove measurement ambiguity for future cases.