Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glynn County board approves setback variance at 238 Devonwood Drive to expand accessory building
Summary
The Glynn County zoning board voted to grant a variance reducing the left-side setback to 6.9 feet at 238 Devonwood Drive, allowing the enlargement of an existing nonconforming detached accessory structure from about 700 to 860 square feet; staff recommended approval to bring the structure into conformity and there was no public opposition.
Glynn County zoning board members voted to approve a variance for 238 Devonwood Drive on an application to reduce the left-side setback to 6.9 feet so an existing nonconforming detached accessory building may be enlarged.
The request, for ZV-2531238, sought relief from Glynn County zoning ordinance section 702. County staff reported the existing detached accessory structure was constructed in 1971 and that the homeowner proposes enlarging the structure from about 700 square feet to about 860 square feet. Staff recommended approval to bring the existing structure into conformity; the encroachment was discovered during the building-permitting process.
Applicant Patty Taneil told the board the enlargement would add about 5 feet to make the garage large enough for two cars. "We're just wanting to expand 5 feet to make the garage larger for 2 cars," she said. There were no members of the public who spoke for or against the application during the public-comment period.
Following staff presentation and applicant remarks, a board member moved to approve the variance "as presented." The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the board chair announced the variance was approved. The approval was limited to the variance described in the application and the enlargement shown in the submitted plans; no additional conditions or amendments were recorded in the hearing record.
Because the encroachment was identified through the permitting process, staff framed the action as a remedy to bring an older, nonconforming structure into conformity with the county ordinance if the variance were granted. The county did not specify any additional enforcement steps or subsequent inspections in the hearing record.
The case was heard as part of the board's agenda with staff presentation, applicant comment and a public-comment period; there were no public objections recorded. The board moved on to subsequent cases and then adjourned.
