Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables ADU variance after resident raises code concerns
Summary
Stephens County planning commissioners tabled a variance request to allow a roughly 400 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit in a side yard after a resident questioned whether the structure meets building code and the applicant was not present to demonstrate hardship or compliance.
The Stephens County Planning Commission on Sept. 3 tabled a variance request to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be placed in a side yard after a resident alleged the structure does not meet building-code requirements and the applicant did not appear to justify a hardship.
Staff had described the request from Brandon Tarpley for an approximately 400-square-foot ADU and recommended approval "contingent upon meeting all code requirements and being issued a valid certificate of occupancy," citing Chapter 59 (Article 2, section 59-201) that limits detached ADUs to rear yards unless a variance is granted. "The ADU must meet all building code requirements, must pass inspection, and must be issued a valid certificate of occupancy before it can be declared fit for habitation," staff told the commission.
During public comment, Bridal Lully, a resident, said the structure "is a storage building" and described it as "sitting on cement block" without footings, arguing it lacks proper plumbing and other features required for habitation. "If it's a storage building, which it is," Lully said, urging commissioners to require verification of code compliance rather than approving the variance.
Commissioners asked staff whether anyone was currently living in the unit; staff said the marshals had told them no one could reside there until a variance was approved and that marshals had not inspected the interior but would check setbacks. Commissioners debated denying the request outright versus tabling it to allow the applicant to provide more information and documentation of a hardship. One commissioner noted that denials would prevent reapplication for six months; another said tabling could lead to a faster hearing if the board of commissioners follows the planning commission's recommendation.
A motion to table the application for lack of information and applicant representation was made and seconded, and the commission voted by voice to table the variance. The item will advance to the Board of Commissioners with the planning commission's recommendation.
The commission did not take a final vote to grant the variance; next steps depend on whether the applicant appears with documentation of hardship and code compliance.
