Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board grants two variances amid contested access case; denies request to place construction trailer in buffer
Summary
The board approved a variance allowing a taller accessory building at 114 Cypress Drive and a separate variance to record a 15-foot access easement in lieu of the standard 60-foot requirement amid objections from neighbors; it denied a request to place a mobile office in a stormwater/buffer area for a Goshen-area apartment project.
The Effingham County Board of Commissioners handled several planning and zoning items April 15, approving a pair of variances but denying a separate request to place a construction trailer within a required buffer near a day-care facility.
Accessory structure height variance: the board approved a request by Brian Jenkins for a variance from Section 3.3.1 to allow a two‑story accessory structure approximately 21 feet tall at 114 Cypress Drive, in a Planned Development (PD) zoning area. Jenkins said matching the existing roof pitch and aesthetic of the main house required the height; the accessory structure met setbacks and was not in floodplain or wetlands. Commissioners approved the variance (voice vote: “All in favor; none opposed; motion carries”). The same variance was approved on second reading later in the meeting.
Access-easement variance (Highway 119): the board heard a contested request from James William Exley to allow a private access easement of 15 feet instead of the county’s 60-foot requirement under subdivision Section 6.2. Exley explained the lane has been used for decades and survey work showed only 15 feet is available. A nearby property owner said she had not received prior notice and expressed concern about multiple owners and the potential for future subdivision. County staff clarified that granting the variance does not itself create or convey an easement or change private property ownership; it would allow the county to accept a plat for recording if the required minimum width is reduced. Commissioners debated precedent and process and discussed that private access and prescriptive easements are ultimately civil matters between property owners if disputes arise. After discussion, one commissioner moved to approve the variance and another seconded; the motion passed but was not unanimous, and the record shows subsequent procedural discussion about whether a second reading could be taken immediately.
Buffer/mobile office denial (Crentham/Crimson Way): the board denied a variance request to place a mobile office (construction trailer) inside a required buffer for a multi‑family site at 100 Crimson Way. The developer’s representative said the trailer would be temporary while utilities and construction proceeded; the developer proposed replacing vegetation and installing a 6-foot privacy fence with windscreen. Neighbors, including the operator of an adjacent day-care center, opposed the request, citing loss of a previously planned vegetative buffer, playground shading lost when trees were removed and daily construction noise and traffic. Commissioners heard these concerns and voted to deny the variance by motion; the vote carried (“All in favor? Aye. None opposed. Motion carries” for denial).
Distinctions: staff repeatedly clarified the board’s role is not to convey private easements or resolve property-title disputes; approval of a variance reduces the ordinance requirement but does not create deeded rights between private parties.
Ending: commissioners asked staff to improve notice and outreach in cases affecting multiple neighbors and to bring clearer documentation to future hearings where prescriptive or long‑used access is in question.
