Commissioners hear appeal request after Zoning Board denied variances for large metal accessory structure

The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners discussed a homeowner appeal on April 1 after the county Zoning Board of Appeals denied three variance requests for an accessory structure at 10424 (highway name redacted). Staff summarized the denied variances and described the appeal process; commissioners did not decide the appeal at the work session itself.

Planning staff told the board the March 13 Zoning Board of Appeals denied requests to: (1) allow an accessory structure to exceed 50% of the principal building’s gross square footage, (2) allow the accessory structure to exceed the height of the primary structure, and (3) permit an accessory building with a full metal exterior siding where code treats an entirely metal exterior as incompatible. Staff said the proposed structure was revised from a prior request of 2,400 square feet to 1,800 square feet for the appeal; the existing house measures about 1,583 square feet.

The planning staff explained the appeal procedure under the county code, Article 15, Section 15.16: an appeal of a Zoning Board of Appeals decision may be placed on the Board of Commissioners agenda and, if the board elects to consider the appeal, a public hearing is scheduled. Staff said May 20 would be the next available hearing date if the board votes to consider the appeal. The document presented to the board included site photos and a slope diagram staff said would reduce visibility of the accessory structure when viewed from the highway.

An applicant who identified himself as the property owner said the structure would house tractors and cars and would not be used for a commercial operation. The applicant also said he does not currently live on the property; it is rented.

Commissioners and staff discussed neighborhood context and visibility on the highway, potential building color and finish to reduce visibility, and whether neighbors had submitted comments: staff said no written support or opposition was filed and no neighbors attended the zoning hearing. County staff and the board’s attorney cautioned against conducting a de facto public hearing during the work session; commissioners limited questions to procedural and clarifying matters.

The board did not vote to rehear or decide the appeal during the April 1 work session. Staff explained that if the board decides to reconsider the zoning board decision, a public hearing would be scheduled (staff suggested May 20) and abutters and other interested parties would have the opportunity to present comments at that hearing.

Ending: The applicant was present at the meeting and commissioners suggested the applicant remain available for follow-up questions; no final action was taken on April 1.