Mecklenburg County zoning officials approved two separate setback variances for adjacent lots on Chapeco Road during a public hearing after finding the parcels too shallow to meet current yard regulations. The approvals let proposed homes sit closer to the road than the zoning ordinance requires. The applications were presented as two separate public-hearing items for properties identified in the hearing materials as county tax number 42Thousandeightone, parcel record 39973, and county tax map number 42000808002, farm record number 39974, both zoned agricultural and located on the north side of Chapeco Road near the intersection with Mile Road. Why it matters: both parcels are reported in the hearing record as roughly 128–131 feet deep and therefore cannot meet the required 100-foot front setback plus the 30-foot rear setback and 10-foot side setbacks for a typical house footprint under current county yard rules. Board members said that reality left little workable placement other than the positions proposed by the applicant. At the hearing, applicant John Kevin Gray said he purchased the lots recently and relied on his realtor and the home seller for permitting: "I went on the guidance of my realtor ... she said that this would be allowed," Gray said. He also said Clayton Homes handled the building permit process for one of the houses. Zoning staff described the survey and the proposed placement; the surveyor, identified in the hearing as Mr. Wright, placed the house on the survey so the proposed dwellings would meet rear and side setbacks but not the 100-foot front setback. Board members asked whether historic or preexisting houses had been on the lots; staff noted an older nonconforming house had been on one parcel and that lots in the area vary in depth. Board members repeatedly said they would have taken an application more favorably if the variance had been requested before the house was placed rather than retroactively, but the board also said similar reasonable requests have been approved in the past. Formal actions: for each parcel the board took a separate motion and vote to approve the variance request. For the first lot the board member who moved said, "I will make a motion to approve," a second was made, and the board approved the variance by voice vote. The board followed the same process and approved the second lot's variance by voice vote. Discussion versus decision: the record contains both discussion of lot history, survey placement and neighborhood objections (some neighbors submitted letters opposed to the placement) and formal votes granting the variances. Clarifying details recorded at the hearing: the first application sought to reduce the front setback to 71 feet 8 inches from the required 100 feet for a new home; the second application proposed a 74-foot front setback and a 27.3-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required. The hearing record notes one building permit for the first house with a permit date of 01/30/2025 and that the parcels were split previously so each fronts a public road. The board approved both variance requests during the same meeting.