Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collierville BZA approves variance for Forest Hill Irene Road property
Summary
The Collierville Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a new principal dwelling at roughly 30 feet from the south property line on an 8-acre Forest Hill Irene Road parcel, citing topography, existing accessory structures and drainage constraints.
The Collierville Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-0 at a meeting to approve a variance allowing a new principal structure on an 8-acre parcel at Forest Hill Irene Road to encroach on the required southern side-yard setback.
Sheila, a Collierville planning staff member, told the board the property (annexed in 02/2011 from unincorporated Shelby County) currently contains a 1980 house of about 2,100 square feet plus multiple inherited accessory structures — two barns (Buildings D and H), two stables (Buildings E and G) and a silo — that limit the practical building area and constrain placement of a replacement dwelling. Staff said steep and irregular topography and existing drainage patterns further restrict siting options.
Under Collierville's FAR zoning standards cited by staff, new dwellings require a 100-foot front setback, a 75-foot rear setback and 75-foot side setbacks on each side. The applicant requested relief for the southern side setback so the proposed house would sit about 30 feet from the south property line; staff said the proposed dwelling would be roughly 130–140 feet from the existing dwelling at 35398 Forest Hill Irene Road and would not be closer to the property line than the existing Barn H.
Staff presented three alternatives the applicant could pursue: move the house 45 feet north to meet the side setback (deemed impractical by the applicant), relocate the dwelling to the north side of the lot (staff said a roughly 12-foot elevation drop there would create drainage challenges), or replace the existing dwelling in its current footprint (which the applicant said could worsen existing drainage). Staff recommended approval after finding the variance standards were met; staff also told the board that condition of approval number 3 had been modified since publication of the staff report and that the applicant agreed to the change.
Applicant Ken Ranks, identified as the property owner and applicant, told commissioners he was seeking the relocation so his 90-year-old father would not have to be displaced multiple times during construction. Ranks said the proposed site is the highest point on the parcel and that raising the home there would reduce flood risk to the dwelling as it currently sits. In response to questions from commissioners, staff and the applicant confirmed the property already experiences drainage issues and that runoff generally flows toward a detention pond on the neighboring parcel.
Commission discussion noted the limited impact to surrounding properties, the distance to the nearest neighboring house and the site's topographic constraints. After discussion a motion "to approve variance as written" was made and seconded; the board recorded votes of Floyd — yes, Frazier — yes and Luttrell — yes, and the motion carried 3-0. Staff summarized next steps: the applicant must pay for a building permit and apply for a demolition permit for the existing house, which staff said would be demolished after the new house is constructed.
The meeting concluded with routine announcements about training opportunities and the next meeting, where staff said one application had been received for September (possible administrative appeal).
