Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance after mobile home placed; applicant cited realtor/contractor errors
Summary
John and Kevin Gray sought a reduction of the 100-foot front setback to 70 feet after a double-wide home was set on an adjacent lot; the board discussed contracting and permitting errors, inspected septic and foundation work, and ultimately denied the variance application.
John and Kevin Gray appeared before the Mecklenburg County zoning panel on May 27, 2025, seeking a variance to reduce the required 100-foot front setback to 70 feet for a parcel on Chaptico Road after a double-wide home was set and foundation, septic and some utilities were installed; the panel denied the variance.
The matter drew extended discussion because the house, septic and foundation were already in place when county inspectors determined the structure did not meet the settlement of setback requirements recorded in the building permits and paperwork. The applicants said they relied on a realtor and contractors who advised them their plan complied with county rules.
John Gray, identified in the hearing as an applicant, said he had asked his realtor whether a double-wide could be used on the property and was told yes; he said he relied on that guidance and that he had obtained well and septic approvals and a building permit. “I tried to do everything the way I was asked to do it,” Gray said. He also told the board he removed a roadside memorial that a neighbor had placed and that the removal later prompted a complaint that led to discovery of the setback issue.
County staff said an initial permit package submitted to the county listed a 100-foot setback but site measurements later showed the structure did not meet that requirement. Robert, the county staff member who inspected the site, measured the property and advised the applicant that a variance would be required. The applicant said the house is set and the septic and foundation have been installed; staff noted the septic and drain-field layout could pose constraints if the house had to be moved.
Board members debated whether to grant relief where the structure and utilities were already in place and whether allowing the variance would set a precedent for other applicants who later claim they were misinformed. One member voiced sympathy for the applicant’s situation but emphasized the need to avoid creating a precedent for future permit errors. The board conducted a roll-call vote on a motion to approve the variance; the record includes at least one recorded “no” vote by Mister Price, and the chair later stated the variance request was denied.
The application referenced county tax number 042000-08-002 and parcel record number 39974. The property is zoned agricultural and is on the north side of Chaptico Road at its intersection with Route 653. The application cited the yard regulations under Article 3, Section 3-3, paragraph a.
Next steps: staff told the applicants they may seek to correct setbacks through a subsequent application or to pursue other remedies, but the board did not grant an exception at this meeting.
