Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves first reading of Ramsey Landing rear-setback variance; second reading postponed
Summary
The Effingham County Planning Board approved a first-reading variance to reduce rear setbacks for covered rear porches in Ramsey Landing Phase 3, adding a stipulation to prevent certain home models from being built back-to-back; the second reading was postponed to the board's next meeting.
The Effingham County Planning Board approved on first reading a variance request to reduce the required rear building setback for covered rear porches in Ramsey Landing Phase 3, but postponed the required second reading to the board's next meeting.
Kimberly Bartlett, senior planner, told the board the request is limited to covered rear porches and not the main house structure. Bartlett said the current R-1 setbacks are 35 feet front, 25 feet rear and 15 feet sides, and that the developer is requesting a 12-foot reduction to accommodate certain porch designs on select lots.
Applicant Ashley Durrance, representing the developer, said the variance would apply only where buyers choose specific models and that six to seven of the community's proposed models already fit within the existing setbacks. "We overlooked the rear setbacks for '25, and it only affects 6 of our like 9 or 10 plans that we offer in there," Durrance said. He said the developer prefers covered porches as a standard feature and that the homeowners association will maintain a 10-foot buffer along rear yards.
During discussion board members and residents pressed for conditions to reduce the likelihood of rear-yard porches facing each other. Resident Jonathan Holm recommended staggering certain models so the larger rear porches do not sit back-to-back. In response the board added a stipulation that, if granted, Madison and Wilmington models cannot be placed on adjacent lots with rear-to-rear alignments.
The board voted to approve the variance on first reading with that additional stipulation. When the board reached the scheduled second-reading item the chair noted the new stipulation had not been part of the materials provided by staff and said the second reading must be postponed to the next meeting so the change can be published. The second-reading consideration was therefore postponed to the board's October 7 meeting.
Key details: the developer said up to 52 lots in the phase could potentially be affected if buyers select the models that require an encroaching covered porch; the applicant estimated actual take-up would likely be lower ("probably 30% to 40%") based on model mix. Bartlett said the variance application was otherwise complete under the county's process and that the variance applies specifically to covered porches, not the primary dwelling.
The item will return for a second reading at the next meeting so the board's formal record can reflect the added stipulation.
