Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and infrastructure capacity dominated parts of the meeting as applicants sought relief and commissioners asked how the county would enforce septic and stormwater limits.

Two cases highlighted the friction between homeowners’ plans and existing rules. In case 4355, Joshua Williams requested a variance that would have allowed an existing 697‑square‑foot structure to be classified as a detached ADU (the county’s current 600‑square‑foot standard applies to heated and cooled area). After lengthy discussion about permits issued in 2022, greenbelt/agricultural status and what constituted heated/cooled living area, the board approved Williams’ 11‑foot front‑setback variance to legalize the building location but denied the 97‑square‑foot ADU variance. Board members cited precedent and the availability of a practical modification (for example, reconfiguring or removing conditioned space) as reasons to deny the size relief.

Case 4361, Billy England, sought a 5‑foot east side‑yard variance to allow a detached ADU for his mother. Staff recommended approval because the property is an older lot of record and the shed/garage is preexisting. The board approved the variance but added a condition: the applicant must coordinate with the stormwater office before permit issuance to address local drainage concerns raised by neighbors and the county commissioner. Planning staff confirmed the lot would not be classified as a 'critical' stormwater lot but that standard stormwater-permit requirements will apply. Commissioner Lauren Breeze raised concerns from neighbors about prior standing-water issues on nearby streets and noted a 2012 TDEC field activity report for an earlier septic issue on a nearby lot.

Across both cases board members repeatedly raised the need for clearer ADU rules: whether a single countywide square‑foot cap is appropriate, whether lot‑size minimums should be tied to larger ADUs, and how septic and stormwater capacity should be evaluated before permits are issued. Staff noted a pending ordinance amendment under review that could change ADU definitions and size limits (one draft discussed raising the ADU cap toward 1,000 sf and clarifying required components). Board members urged staff to bring adopted ordinance changes to the BZA packet once the commission approves them.

Next procedural steps: Applicants whose ADU requests were denied may modify units to meet the 600‑sf heated/cooled threshold or reapply after the county’s pending ADU rules are finalized. The England approval proceeds to permitting but requires stormwater coordination before a permit is issued.

Provenance: discussion and decisions on ADU questions appear across case 4355 (topicintro SEG 1999; topfinish SEG 2755) and 4361 (topicintro SEG 3956; topfinish SEG 4271).