Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Accessory Apartment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hoschton City public hearing held for accessory-apartment permit and related variance on 0.62-acre lot
Summary
Hoschton City held a public hearing on a request by Matthew Travis Martin for a conditional use permit (CCU 2501) and a related variance (Res. B2503) for an accessory apartment on a 0.62-acre property.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Accessory Apartment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hoschton City held a public hearing on a request by Matthew Travis Martin for a conditional use permit (CCU 2501) and a related variance (Resolution B2503) for an accessory apartment on a 0.62-acre property.
City staff described the structure as an existing "pole barn" to be renovated. The city planner said the requested variances relate to setbacks and area-minimum requirements in the Hoschton zoning ordinance, section 605, for accessory apartments. "Basically, this is pretty straightforward," the city planner said, and noted the planning commission recommended limiting occupancy to one person. "I think that this is pretty straightforward and definitely recommend approval of it," the planner added.
Jennifer (staff) summarized the hearing procedures and the advertised items, saying each side would have 10 minutes to present the pros and cons. No members of the public rose to speak either in favor of or opposed to the request during the hearing. After the planner's presentation and the opportunity for questions, Mayor (speaker 1) closed the public hearing and the council moved to adjourn the hearing without a recorded final vote on the permit during this meeting.
The main outstanding items noted in the hearing were the planning commission's occupancy recommendation and the planner's favorable recommendation; the council did not take a recorded roll-call vote on the CCU or the variance in the transcript provided. The applicant was identified as Matthew Travis Martin and the record shows the two items were advertised both in a paper notice and with signage on the property.
The next procedural step indicated in the meeting was closure of the public hearing and transition to the work session; the transcript does not record any final action (approval or denial) on CCU 2501 or Res. B2503 during this session.

