Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Transitional Tiny Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gautier council denies special exception and square-foot variance for Carter Road tiny‑home project
Summary
The Gautier City Council voted to deny a request to rezone agricultural land for a tiny‑home transitional living development on Carter Road and rejected a separate variance to allow 300‑square‑foot units, after extended public comment and debate over location, services and neighborhood fit.
The Gautier City Council on Feb. 18 denied a special‑exception request to allow a tiny‑home transitional living development on Carter Road and separately denied a variance that would have allowed 10 dwellings of roughly 300 square feet each.
The planning department presented the application (GPC‑25‑02‑SE) for about 4.14 acres with a future land‑use designation of low‑density residential. Councilman George moved to deny the special exception; Councilman College seconded the motion, and the motion carried. Councilman George moved to deny the accompanying variance (GPC‑25‑03‑VAR); Councilman College seconded. Councilmen Anderson and Jackson recorded abstentions on the variance vote; the motion carried.
Supporters and opponents made lengthy public comments before the council voted. Ashley Hawthorne, who identified herself as secretary of the board of Transition Boulevard, told the council the project was “a need within any community” and said the program would use selection criteria and partner organizations to screen participants. Brandy Westarge, who identified herself as the property owner at 5850 Carter Road and the applicant for the proposal, said the proposal included screening criteria, partnerships with colleges and service providers, and an on‑site caretaker/home manager living unit.
Opponents raised concerns about the site’s rural character and lack of infrastructure. Lee Bond, a nearby property owner, said the location lacked transportation, grocery access and other services and argued the development would be better placed closer to downtown or existing services. Several residents worried the project’s rural setting would leave participants isolated and strain emergency and public‑safety resources.
Council members who opposed approval cited the neighborhood’s agricultural zoning and resident objections. Councilman George said the council supports the objective of transitional housing but must “protect the integrity” of areas zoned agricultural and respond to residents who live there now. Councilman Collins and others urged the applicant to consider a different location, a task force or additional partnerships before returning with a new plan.
Planning director Scott Anderson told the council the site may have access to water services but that transportation and other supports cited by speakers were limited at the location. The council did not adopt any conditions or referral directing staff to pursue alternate sites during the Feb. 18 meeting.
The council’s votes leave the applicant with the option to revise the plan and reapply; no new approvals or variance relief were granted at the meeting.
