Dawson County planning commission denies request to reclassify pool house as separate dwelling

The Dawson County Planning Commission on Tuesday denied a request from Kareem Hawthorne to reclassify an existing pool house as a separate residential dwelling on a combined parcel in the RPC zoning district.

The commission voted to approve a motion to deny the variance by a 2–1 vote with one abstention. The motion before the commission effectively denied Hawthorne’s request for a corrective variance (VA 25-15) to recognize the pool house as a dwelling on the single parcel now taxed as one property.

Why it matters: The pool house has been built and occupied in recent years, and the applicant says the structure was permitted and inspected during construction. County staff told the commission the structure has not passed final mechanical, electrical and plumbing inspections and does not have a certificate of occupancy; a magistrate court citation on the property remains set for Nov. 5.

Applicant Kareem Hawthorne told the commission he and his family submitted plans in 2019 and were issued permits in May 2020 for two structures that later were combined into a single parcel. Hawthorne said the pool house is a 3,100-square-foot, two-bedroom, four-bath structure with a three-car garage that the family built to house in-laws and that they had not received notice from their homeowners association that the use would be prohibited. “We built based on that,” Hawthorne said, referring to county-issued permits and inspections during construction.

County staff and the commission described the central legal issue as whether the planning commission can vary to allow a use that the RPC zoning district specifically disallows. Staff said RPC zoning does not allow two residential dwellings on a single lot and that, although the Hawthornes submitted plans and received permits in 2020, the accessory structure was incorrectly permitted as a pool house rather than as a residence. Staff also said the pool house has not received final inspections and therefore lacks a certificate of occupancy.

Commission discussion repeatedly noted that the RPC rules “do not allow” a second residence on one lot. Commissioners and staff outlined alternatives the applicant may pursue, including: (1) appealing the planning commission decision to the Board of Commissioners; or (2) restoring the prior lot lines (reverting to the 1998 subdivision plat or otherwise resurveying) so each dwelling sits on its own lot. Staff said a 2020 recorded survey combined Lots 13 and 14 into a single parcel and suggested that reverting the parcel to two lots is a possible, though not necessarily simple, remedy.

Several commissioners expressed concern about setting a precedent by granting a variance that changes an allowable use under RPC zoning. One commissioner said the board is in a “pickle” and that historically legal counsel has advised the commission it cannot vary to use.

The applicant was told the planning commission’s decision is relevant to, and will be noted in, the magistrate court proceeding; staff said the court date has been continued several times and that county staff had hoped for a planning commission decision before the next hearing. Hawthorne said he will continue pursuing inspections and compliance work ahead of the Nov. 5 court date.

What the commission decided: The planning commission approved a motion to deny the requested variance (VA 25-15). The motion to deny carried with a 2–1 vote and one abstention. The denial means the commission did not grant recognition of the pool house as a separate residential dwelling; the applicant retains appeal rights to the Board of Commissioners.

Outlook: The applicant may appeal to the Board of Commissioners or pursue a lot-line reestablishment to separate the two structures onto distinct parcels. The magistrate court citation regarding the pool house remains scheduled for Nov. 5 and staff said that outcome may be influenced by the planning commission decision.