Neighbors urge denial of after‑the‑fact accessory-structure and fence variances at Shady Place

A homeowner asked the land use hearing officer on Feb. 9 to allow a six‑foot fence and a small accessory structure to remain within required front/side setbacks in the RSC‑6 zoning district. The owner said the structure is 96 square feet and that he built it believing no permit was required for structures under 150 square feet.

Carol Ann Pedal of Development Services presented staff’s review of variance 260247, which seeks a 13‑foot reduction for an existing six‑foot fence and a 9.5‑foot variance to keep an accessory structure at a 5.5‑foot front-yard setback. The applicant (speaker 15) said inspections had been performed and the structure passed final inspection for the work done, but staff confirmed a July code compliance citation exists and that a trade permit for the half‑bath addition is currently in process but not approved.

Julie Hurst, representing the 12 Oaks Special District, testified online in opposition and argued the county should not grant after‑the‑fact approvals that could encourage others to build illegally and then seek forgiveness. Hurst asked that the county enforce code and consider fines or contractor penalties.

Staff noted that accessory structures under 150 square feet do not always require building permits but do still have to meet setback and height requirements; the applicant said he followed direction after enforcement staff told him larger work would require trade permits. The hearing officer took the testimony into the record and closed the application.

What happens next: the hearing officer will issue a written decision based on the record; code‑compliance history and the outstanding trade permit may factor into that decision.