Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Accessory Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustments approves variance for accessory building at 3765 Pasture Gate Circle
Summary
The Elbert County Board of Adjustments approved a variance (VAR20243765) to reduce a side‑setback by 13 feet to allow construction of a 24x36 accessory building at 3765 Pasture Gate Circle, finding topography and leach-field location created practical difficulties.
The Elbert County Board of Adjustments approved a variance allowing a 13‑foot reduction in the side‑yard setback for an accessory building at 3765 Pasture Gate Circle (VAR20243765).
Danny Klebanner, speaking for Elbert County Community and Development Services, presented the variance request and the staff recommendation for approval with conditions. Klebanner described the lot as an oddly shaped wedge lot within the Running Brook Estates planned‑unit development, with driveway and existing leach‑field locations that limit buildable area. He said the applicant proposed a 24 by 36 foot accessory building sited to avoid utility easements and to minimize impacts to drainage and neighboring lots.
Klebanner summarized the variance review under Elbert County Zoning Regulations Article 3.J.7, concluding that due to lot shape, topography and the location of the leach field, strict application of the setback would create an unnecessary hardship and the requested variance is the minimum relief necessary. The staff report noted the applicant provided required notice and that the homeowner’s architectural review committee had no objection; staff found no outstanding referral comments.
Neighbor Juan Reyes asked whether the approved variance would require special disclosure if the property is sold; county staff said normal title research and a title company’s report would disclose recorded variances and that buyers’ due diligence and realtor disclosures typically surface such items.
Another neighbor, Don Burrows, objected in public comment, saying other building locations were available on the lot and asking whether a variance now would open the door for further variances. The applicant, property owner Don Tipple, described on‑site drainage constraints, the location of the leach field and the need to use the existing driveway to meet fire access requirements, saying the proposed location minimizes stormwater and septic impacts.
Following a motion to approve and a second, the Board of Adjustments approved the variance. Conditions mirror standard practice: removal of sign after seven days, payment of fees, and recording of the variance resolution.
With approval, the applicant may proceed with building permits after satisfying the stated conditions.
