Coffee County Board of Zone Appeals approves B Street setback, hears several A‑1 variances and tables one request

The Coffee County Board of Zone Appeals met Aug. 21 and considered multiple variance requests tied to residential setbacks and the county’s A‑1 five‑acre minimum. The board approved a 25‑foot building‑setback variance for a proposed home on B Street, approved variances tied to family hardship and septic placement on two properties, and tabled a request for Hendricks Lane after no one appeared to represent that application.

The meeting opened with routine approvals of minutes and the agenda, then moved to the variance items. A recurring theme in discussion was a county moratorium and a change to A‑1 zoning that raised the minimum lot size to five acres; staff and board members cited the moratorium and planning staff guidance when explaining why some A‑1 requests face strict limits.

Southern Custom Buildings, B Street (Oakley Subdivision) Southern Custom Buildings requested a setback variance for a home in Oakley Subdivision. A representative said the proposed house would be “about a 1,200 square foot with a small garage” and roughly “30 feet wide,” and that the lot configuration in Oakley features 100‑foot lots with existing houses built close to property lines. The board moved to approve a 25‑foot setback for the B Street lot. The board vote passed 4 to 0. The chair told the applicant to coordinate paperwork with county staff next week.

Ragsdale Road (Smotherman) — developer proposal to split a 6‑plus acre tract Representatives identified as Robin and Chad of Shore Creek Homes described purchasing a roughly six‑acre tract in order to divide it into three building lots of roughly two acres each; two lots would face Ragsdale Road and one would be slightly under two acres, they said. They reported having a site layout prepared by Johnson & Associates and said water and soil conditions had been investigated. The applicants said they purchased the tract in March and that the county’s moratorium later restricted new divisions in A‑1 zones to five acres.

The board debated procedure and code restrictions for A‑1 variances. At one point a board member summarized sections 10.8.D(2) and (3) of the zoning standards, which state that variances shall not be granted to allow uses otherwise not permitted in the district and that mere loss of value alone does not justify a variance. After a series of motions and procedural steps the record shows a motion to disapprove the Ragsdale Road (Smotherman) application was moved and seconded; the board chair called for the vote and then stated, “It fails.” The transcript therefore records a failed motion to disapprove during the meeting; the record does not include a clear final, separate approval motion and formal tally for the underlying variance request beyond those procedural votes. Planning staff also told applicants that the commission and planning staff are working on code changes to address A‑1 subdivision questions.

Hendricks Lane (applicant absent) — tabled An application for a variance at 170 Hendricks Lane (an applicant’s father‑in‑law was listed in the paperwork) was presented without a family representative at the microphone. The board voted to table the item until the next meeting and asked the applicant to submit at least a sketch and additional information (even hand‑drawn) before the item returns to the board.

Asbury Road (Jerry Thomason) — family hardship, temporary residence Jerry Thomason said he bought 4.5 acres on Asbury Road (closed in February) and wants to allow a second, temporary residence for his son on the rear of the property so the son can care for him; Thomason described health problems and the purchase as a family‑hardship situation. Board members discussed setbacks, septic permits and the need to follow state permitting for septic (TDEC). A motion to approve the variance for 3554 Asbury Road passed; the chair told Thomason to check with the county office for permits and advised waiting for the TDEC septic permit before final placement of septic infrastructure.

Rock Road (Jones) — septic variance approved Jake Hall presented a request tied to Lot 2303 (family property) for a one‑acre variance to permit a septic drain field in a landlocked portion of the parcel. Hall said the lot had a prior perk test and that the parcel would be used for a septic drain field supporting an adjacent house; the lot could not be subdivided into a separate road‑accessible lot. A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded; the board voted in favor and the chair stated, “It passes.” No numerical roll‑call tally was recorded in the audio for that vote.

What it means and next steps Several applicants were told to coordinate permits and paperwork with county planning staff. Board members and staff repeatedly referenced a county moratorium and the A‑1 five‑acre minimum when explaining why variances in that district are tightly constrained; planning staff told applicants that code amendments are being considered to address recurring subdivision questions. The board scheduled follow‑up or requested additional sketches and documents where applicants were absent or where staff needed more detail.

Votes at a glance - B Street (Southern Custom Buildings) — variance to allow 25‑foot setbacks: approved, vote recorded as 4–0. - 170 Hendricks Lane — variance request: tabled until applicant presents (sketch and more information) at the next meeting. - Ragsdale Road (Smotherman) — developer request to split ~6 acres into three lots: a motion to disapprove was made and failed during the meeting; the transcript does not include a clear final approval tally for the underlying variance beyond the procedural votes noted. - 3554 Asbury Road (Jerry Thomason) — variance for family hardship / temporary residence: motion passed (applicant directed to work with staff on permits and TDEC septic). - 2937 Rock Road (Jones / Jake Hall) — one‑acre variance for septic drain field on a landlocked parcel: approved (chair stated “It passes”); numerical roll call not specified on audio.

The board closed the meeting after a brief general discussion about growth, floodplain building and the upcoming Coffee County planning commission meeting on Aug. 26 at 4:00 p.m., where board members were encouraged to attend for updates on proposed code amendments.