Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Slope Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for 12% slope encroachment on Salt Creek Township lot
Summary
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals approved VAR‑24‑47, allowing a single‑family home footprint to encroach into ECO Area 1 (12% slope) on a 0.94‑acre lot in Salt Creek Township. Staff recommended approval; the board adopted the recommendation 3‑0. Approval is limited to the submitted site plan footprint.
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3‑0 to approve VAR‑24‑47, a variance allowing a proposed single‑family home footprint to encroach into the Environmental Constraints Overlay (ECO) Area 1 12% slope restriction on a 0.94‑acre parcel in Salt Creek Township.
Planning staff recommended approval, noting the parcel—platted in 1967 as Lot 10 in the Salt Creek Realty subdivision—is constrained by slopes greater than 12 percent and contains only three small, noncontiguous areas totaling roughly 1,800 square feet that fall at or below the 12% threshold. Staff told the board the petitioner is not in a position to submit a building permit (which can trigger a different waiver process under the county development ordinance) and that the variance being requested is specific to the footprint submitted; any change in footprint would require further review.
At the hearing, the petitioner’s representative, Ashley Fletcher of Davis Homes, confirmed the submitted footprint is expected to remain as drawn unless a highway driveway permit or other unforeseen condition requires minor adjustment. Staff explained the new Monroe County development ordinance (adopted Dec. 18, 2024) retains the ECO slope standards now codified in chapter 823 and allows a building‑permit waiver when a parcel has contiguous buildable area of at least 1 acre; that waiver did not apply here because the petitioners would not purchase the lot until they confirmed buildability.
Board members asked how strictly the approved footprint would be controlled; staff said the approval is tied to the submitted site plan and that any significant deviation would require an exception or a subsequent variance. The motion to approve VAR‑24‑47, including the site plan submitted by the petitioners, passed by roll call: Guy Lofman, Pamela Davidson and Margaret Clements voted yes.
The approval is limited to the submitted plan; staff emphasized future permit reviews will compare the building‑permit site plan to the variance site plan and could require additional review if the footprint changes.
