Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Rear Yard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Ridge Zoning Board postpones variance request for Cedar Glen addition proposed for elderly parents
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals postponed a request by Jeff and Rosemary Sites for a rear-yard setback variance that would reduce the required 25-foot rear setback to about 2 feet for a proposed addition. The board asked the applicants to work with city staff and their contractor on alternatives and set a new hearing date of Oct. 13, 2025.
The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of East Ridge on Sept. 8, 2025, voted to postpone consideration of a rear-yard setback variance sought by Jeffrey and Rosemary Sites for their property at 408 Cedar Glen Circle. The board set the matter to return at its Oct. 13, 2025 meeting and asked the applicants to work with city staff and their contractor to find alternatives to the proposed 2-foot setback.
The applicants asked to build an attached addition to the rear of their single-family dwelling to provide living space for elderly parents. City staff described the proposal as a roughly 20–25-foot by 30-foot addition that would produce a rear setback of about 2 feet, requiring a variance of about 23 feet from the 25-foot rear-yard requirement in the R-1 district.
Why it matters: the proposal would place a fixed structure much closer than usual to a rear property line, triggering life-safety and construction requirements under the city’s adopted building standards. Michael Howell, the city’s chief building official, told the board that "it'll have to be 1 hour fire rated with an absolute no openings in it whatsoever" if the wall is built two feet from the lot line, a condition that would increase construction cost and affect design.
Board members also noted a private sewer grinder pump on the property that the applicants want to avoid disturbing; the applicants said keeping the pump in place was a principal reason the addition was proposed at the rear where it would encroach on the setback. Rosemary Sites told the board the addition would have both interior access to the main house and an exterior entrance; she said the project is intended to provide living space for her elderly parents.
The board discussed alternative approaches raised by the applicants and staff, including reducing the addition’s size, moving the addition to the opposite (driveway) side of the house, or otherwise changing the footprint so the new wall would not be only 2 feet from the lot line. Several board members expressed concern about approving a permanent structure so close to the property line because of fire and emergency access issues.
Outcome and next steps: the board voted to postpone Case 25-4 to the Oct. 13, 2025 meeting to give the applicants time to work with their contractor and with Mike (Michael Howell) to explore options that would avoid a two-foot exterior setback. The board instructed the applicants to consult with staff on sizing and placement changes before the next hearing.
The board’s deliberations and the postponement leave the application open; no variance was approved or denied at the Sept. 8 meeting.
