Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardee County planning board tables request to place 850‑sq‑ft modular ADU on 6.25 acres in Wauchula
Summary
The Hardee County Planning and Zoning Board tabled a waiver request from Michelle and Mark Watson to place an 850‑square‑foot modular accessory dwelling unit on 6.25 acres in the A‑1 zoning district after staff recommended denial and board members expressed concern about precedent and missing board participation.
The Hardee County Planning and Zoning Board on Thursday tabled a decision on Planning & Zoning application 25‑50, a request from property owners Michelle and Mark Watson to place an 850‑square‑foot modular accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a 6.25‑acre parcel in the A‑1 (agricultural) zoning district in the Wauchula area.
Planning technician Jordan told the board staff recommended denial because other administrative pathways exist under the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), including allowing an ADU up to 40% of the principal residence, a limited special‑use permit for medical/family emergencies, or an exception to minimum lot size by splitting off no less than 2.5 acres. Jordan said staff did not see foreseeable negative effects to the neighborhood from the extra 50 square feet but felt the waiver request did not meet the threshold for special relief because those alternative procedures were available.
The nut of the matter, board members and the applicants said, was the applicants’ difficulty finding a modular unit at exactly 800 square feet and mortgage/financial constraints that made splitting the parcel or pursuing other options difficult. Mark Watson, identified as a property owner, said the family sought the ADU so an elderly, ailing relative could live nearby with a caregiver present. “We found it hard to find a modular home at 800 square feet,” Mark Watson said. Michelle Watson confirmed the house they located would be about 850 square feet.
Board members voiced concern about setting precedent if the board granted a waiver and about the limited participation of board members at the hearing. One board member moved to deny the waiver; that motion received no second and did not proceed. Another board member moved to table the item until the next meeting so the applicants could return when more board members would be present to provide a clearer majority on a final decision. A board member seconded the motion to table, and the motion carried on a voice vote; a roll‑call tally was not provided. The board set the next regular public hearing for Thursday, July 10, at 6:00 p.m., when the Watsons are expected to return.
Jordan outlined the specific ULDC references discussed at the hearing: subsection 2.160.01(e)(3) (waiver criteria and the 40% ADU size method), section 9.06 (temporary manufacturer/manufactured/modular home provisions), and section 11.0402 (administrative procedures for exceptions and special‑use permits). Jordan said the applicants were advised of three administrative options but had concerns—primarily financial—that made those options impractical for them at this time.
No members of the public spoke in opposition or support during the public‑comment portion of the hearing. The board’s discussion focused on technical compliance with the ULDC and on whether granting the waiver would conflict with the purpose of the code or create an unwanted precedent for future waiver requests.
The application will return to the Planning and Zoning Board at the July 10 meeting; the board did not take a final vote on the waiver at this session.
