A contested rezoning request at 124 Bauchom Deas Road prompted extended debate at Monroe City Council’s Nov. 25 meeting over whether zoning should be used to cure an unpermitted addition.

Patrick Blazic of the planning department told council the applicant requested a rezoning from Regional Corridor Mixed Use to Residential Low Density to resolve a zoning violation related to a substantial addition to the house. Planning staff recommended denial, saying the rezoning is inconsistent with the city’s land‑use and transportation plan, while the planning board recommended approval as a remedy to bring the property into compliance.

Councilors asked staff how the violation was discovered; Blazic said the tax assessor’s office flagged an inquiry that led staff to the violation. Councilors and staff said the addition is approximately 1,500 square feet and roughly doubled the home’s size (from about 1,100 to 3,000 square feet).

The applicant (identified in the record as Jean Claude Ajo/"JC") and a general contractor told council they had applied for permits beginning in 2023, including a septic permit with Union County, and that staffing delays and other problems prevented timely issuance of a building permit. The applicant said he began work to respond to mortgage and insurance pressures and documented the project with photos and videos; he told council, "I did apply for a permit... I didn't get any answer." (Applicant quote from the public comment.)

Planning staff said they found no building permit for the large addition in the provided meeting segments and warned that, absent an approved rezoning, the city could pursue the violation process that might require removal of the addition.

Council members debated the policy question of whether the zoning process should be used to retroactively legalize an unpermitted addition. One council member stated, "I don't believe in using the zoning process to try to fix a problem that was caused by not getting something permitted," and warned that approving such a rezoning could set a precedent.

A motion was recorded to deny land‑use and transportation plan compliance for the proposal and to deny the zoning map amendment on the grounds the proposal was not reasonable or in the public interest; the motion was seconded and debated. The meeting transcript captures the motion and debate in the provided segments but does not contain a clear roll‑call tally for the final vote in the segments supplied here.