Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held on Timber Ridge setback variance; staff recommended denial
Summary
A public hearing was held on a request to reduce front and rear setbacks for Lot 65 at 22224 Timber Ridge. Planning staff recommended denial citing a self-created hardship; a resident opposed the change. The council closed the hearing and took no final action during the meeting.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City planning staff and neighbors discussed a request to vary setback standards for Lot 65 (22224 Timber Ridge) during the Dawsonville City Council meeting on June 16, 2025.
Planning staff described the request (case VA VARC2500187) as a request to reduce both front- and rear-yard setbacks on a recorded planned unit development from 20 feet to 16 feet to allow construction of a single-family residence. Staff recommended denial, saying the situation represented a self-created hardship to accommodate the proposed floor plan. "A lot of this is a self created hardship to accommodate the floor plan that they are presenting on the property," planning staff said.
A resident, Logan Samples of 235 Timber Ridge, spoke in opposition. Samples said the change would significantly alter the cul-de-sac's character and called the request "pretty significant," adding that it would leave "no front yard, no backyard, no side yard" and could reduce property values. Samples also described the requested reduction as a "40% reduction" in setback standards; the formal request on the record seeks a change from 20 feet to 16 feet (a 4-foot reduction).
Staff noted an adjoining lot had been before the council on a similar variance in May and asked the council to consider this application on its individual merits. The council opened the public hearing, heard the objection, and then closed the hearing; no final vote on the variance was recorded in the meeting minutes.
Council members asked no recorded follow-up questions during the hearing. The public hearing record will remain part of the planning case file for any future council action.

