Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tupelo planning committee denies front-setback variance for Lake Circle house

Tupelo Planning Committee · February 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tupelo Planning Committee denied a request to allow a 21-foot front setback for a Lake Circle house, finding it did not meet variance criteria; staff said the lot is buildable and the applicant may appeal or submit a revised plan.

The Tupelo Planning Committee voted Feb. 2 to deny a front-setback variance request for a proposed house on Lake Circle after staff analysis said the application did not meet the findings required for a variance.

Brandon McMillan of Guntown, Mississippi, the applicant, told the committee the house is a spec home and said he had set the front setback at 21 feet ‘‘by mistake.’’ Committee members and staff debated whether the required front setback in this case was 40 feet (based on a flagged-lot measurement) or a different standard, but the staff analysis treated the applicable requirement as 40 feet and concluded the lot is buildable and the variance findings were not met.

Pat Faulkner, a consultant who drafted the staff analysis, summarized the variance criteria and said the team ‘‘did not find that it met the required findings for variance’’ because there are no physical constraints that prevent building a smaller house. Committee members expressed concern about creating a nonconforming precedent by granting a large front-setback variance, and Patty Thompson moved to deny the request; the motion was seconded by Aaron Washington and the committee approved the denial. The chair later clarified that Lindsey Leake had recused himself from consideration and had taken no part in the decision at his request.

Staff advised the applicant that he may appeal the committee’s decision or submit a revised plan that meets the required setbacks; staff offered to work with him on revised plans.