Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves 13-foot side-setback variance for Pasture Gate Circle property
Summary
The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow a 24x36 accessory building to encroach 13 feet into the side setback at 3765 Pasture Gate Circle (VAR2024-3765). Staff recommended approval and the adjacent neighbor provided written and verbal concurrence.
The Board of Adjustment approved a variance April 23 to allow an accessory building to encroach 13 feet into the required 25-foot side setback at 3765 Pasture Gate Circle (case VAR2024-3765).
Danny Klebanner, land use planner with Elbert County Community and Development Services, presented the application. The lot is approximately 2.65 acres in the Running Brook Estates planned unit development. The applicant and property owner, Don Tipple, asked to place a 24-by-36-foot, 16-foot-tall accessory building on the southwest side of the house. Klebanner said the utility easement is not impacted and that the applicant had met notice requirements, obtained HOA architectural-review committee approval and secured one supporting public comment.
Klebanner reviewed variance standards in Elbert County Zoning Regulations Article 3.J.7 and told the board the requested relief is the minimum necessary to allow the accessory building sited to avoid topographic constraints, the existing leach field and driveway alignment. He recommended approval with standard conditions: removal of public hearing signage within seven days and recordation of the resolution and payment of applicable fees before the variance becomes effective.
Neighbor Juan Reyes (3751 Pasture Gate Circle) attended and told the board he and his wife had discussed the request with the applicant and do not oppose the variance. Another nearby resident asked whether a future buyer would need to notify neighbors; county counsel and staff explained that any recorded variance appears in the public record and is typically discovered in title work during a sale.
Applicant Don Tipple described site constraints, including drainage pathways and the location of the home’s leach field, and explained that placing the accessory building in alternate locations would either disturb the leach field or require crossing the drainage features. Tipple said the proposed siting uses the existing driveway for access and meets fire-department access expectations. He also noted the architectural review committee’s approval.
After brief discussion the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the variance with conditions; the motion carried.
Votes at a glance: VAR2024-3765 — Approved (motion passed; recorded vote: yes=3, no=0).
Why it matters: The variance allows the owner to construct an accessory building in a location staff and the applicant said minimizes disturbance to the lot’s leach field and drainage features while preserving driveway access and emergency access routes.
What’s next: The applicant must record the variance resolution and pay required fees for the variance to take effect.
