Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Effingham County staff propose simpler height cap for accessory structures, clarify ADU rules
Summary
County staff discussed rewriting accessory-structure height language after repeated variances; proposed approach would cap eave height at 20 feet and prohibit structures taller than the adjacent principal house, while clarifying when a detached unit is treated as an accessory dwelling unit.
At an Effingham County meeting, Chairman Steve Candler, director of development services, outlined proposed edits to the county's accessory-structure rules aimed at reducing frequent variance requests and clarifying when a detached building is treated as an accessory dwelling unit.
The discussion focused on two measurement issues: (1) a current 15-foot maximum measured “above finished grade to the eave” for R and PDR zoning districts and (2) whether roof pitch and ridge height should affect allowable accessory structure height. Candler said the ordinance currently treats some AR1/AR2 districts as having a different maximum (35 feet) but that R and PDR districts use the 15-foot eave-based limit.
Officials said the existing language has generated several variance applications because roof lines and house designs vary widely. Candler said the county is trying to avoid a rule that allows roof pitch to produce uneven results among otherwise similar homes. “So you can't go above your house,” he said, summarizing the staff intent that accessory structures not exceed the adjacent principal structure's height.
Staff described the other dimensional rules that apply now: an accessory structure must sit at least 10 feet from the principal house; a breezeway that connects a detached structure to the house makes that structure part of the principal building for height measurement; and an accessory structure that is built with the intent to be occupied may be treated as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rather than an accessory structure.
County staff told commissioners an ADU differs from an accessory structure because ADUs may be occupied; they said if plans show a future intention to occupy a second‑story room above a garage, the county would treat that building as an ADU when reviewing permits. Staff also said applicants must submit building elevations, which county reviewers use to measure heights.
Several commissioners favored simplifying the ordinance to reduce the number of variance hearings. One commissioner suggested a flat eave cap — for example, 20 feet in R‑1 districts — but keeping a second limitation that any accessory structure may not exceed the height of the adjacent principal structure. Proponents said that approach would remove disputes about finished grade and roof pitch and would eliminate many routine variance requests. Others warned that homeowner association covenants and varying house designs would still produce uneven outcomes.
No formal motion or vote was recorded. Staff was asked to reword the ordinance language to make enforcement clearer and to return a revised draft to the commission for further review and formal consideration.
