Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Permit Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Builder challenges Marion County R-1 roof-pitch rule for Rolling Hills lots; building official points to code and appeal process
Summary
A designer and local builder asked the board to intervene after county building staff rejected permits for single-family homes with low/flat roof facades in an R-1 zone. The building official said the code requires a 4:12 pitch in R-1 and that the appellants may appeal to the Licensing Review Board or pursue an ordinance change.
A building-permit dispute over low-pitch/flat-roof house designs in the Rolling Hills area drew a brief staff explanation and direction to follow the county code or an appeal process.
Designer and builder concerns Designer Kevin Ternius and a contractor said their client planned to build four single-family homes on one-acre lots in Rolling Hills with modern, flat-roof facades. Ternius told the commission that similar homes received permits in 2022 and that the current rejection is preventing planned construction and local investment.
Code explanation and options Mike Savage, Marion County Building Safety Director, responded that the core issue is zoning-specific code language for R-1 (single-family) areas. Savage cited county code Section 5.5-40 and said the R-1 standards include a minimum roof pitch requirement (which the county revised several years ago from 5:12 to 4:12). "The issue at hand ... they wanna build a 1:12 roof pitch instead of the code-required 4:12 roof pitch because this is a county code requirement," Savage said. He told the applicants they may appeal a building official’s determination to the county licensing review board; alternately, the board could consider an ordinance change through the land-development process.
Next steps Savage said staff offered to meet with the designer and produce options, and the board advised following the administrative appeal or proposing an ordinance amendment through the normal planning and code-review channels. No policy change or waiver was approved at the meeting.
Why it matters: The dispute highlights how development design conflicts with long-standing zoning standards and the formal avenues available to resolve them — an administrative appeal to the licensing review board or a legislative change to the land-development code.
