Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smyrna appeals board denies Regent Homes’ request to shrink front setback in Blakeney
Summary
The Town of Smyrna Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request from Regent Homes to reduce the primary front setback from 35 feet to 25 feet on several Loudwater Court lots in the Blakeney subdivision, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the hardship required under the municipal ordinance.
The Town of Smyrna Board of Zoning Appeals on a November evening denied a setback variance requested by Regent Homes that would have reduced the primary front setback from 35 feet to 25 feet for several lots on Loudwater Court in the Blakeney subdivision.
Town staff outlined the request and the rationale for the variance. "Per the applicant, the allowance of this variance would permit for more functional rear yards and to minimize issues with grading and stormwater runoff," said Speaker 5, the presenting staff member. Staff reviewed the development’s planned residential development (PRD) approvals dating to 2017 and cited Section 7.08 of the municipal zoning ordinance as the standard for granting a variance.
Staff told the board that the rear of the requested parcels contains a rock face created by earlier grading and that the steep topography limits rear-yard usability. "The rear of the requested parcels contain a rock face resulting from grading the site prior to development," Speaker 5 said, while also noting that "a home could be built on the properties as the plot shows and meet all applicable setback requirements." Staff said public works reviewed the grading plan and did not identify drainage issues that would affect homes built as shown on the plat.
Board members questioned whether additional grading or other construction techniques could have provided acceptable rear yards without changing the setback and expressed concern about setting a precedent. A board member argued that hardship had been created by the developer’s prior decisions: "Hardship created by the developer," Speaker 4 said. Another member emphasized sidewalk and driveway impacts tied to reduced setbacks, noting the purpose of the 35-foot standard includes driveway length and preventing vehicles on sidewalks.
After discussion, Speaker 3 moved "to deny based on lack of hardship," a motion seconded by Speaker 2. The board voted to deny the variance; the moderator announced the motion carried and the request was denied.
The record shows the PRD has evolved through multiple approvals and that staff acknowledged an internal counting error when assessing how many lots in the subdivision already use 25-foot setbacks. The board closed the public hearing with no public speakers and then moved on; no further staff business was presented before adjournment.
What happens next: The denial leaves the lots subject to the existing 35-foot primary front setback; any future request must demonstrate the hardship criteria in Section 7.08 of the municipal zoning ordinance or pursue alternative site changes that comply with the ordinance.
