Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commissioners deny variance to allow 24 apartments on 2 acres; neighbors and commissioners cite ordinance and easement concerns
Loading...
Summary
Fannin County commissioners voted to deny a request to allow 24 apartment units on a 2-acre parcel where local ordinance requires 3 acres for that density, citing lack of demonstrated hardship, nearby easement and neighbor opposition.
The Fannin County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a variance that would have allowed a developer to build 24 apartments on a two-acre parcel, saying the county ordinance requires three acres for that number of units.
The decision followed a presentation from a developer representative who argued the extra units made the project economically viable. “The decision in front of you is not just about 8 additional apartments,” the presenter said, arguing that 24 units make the development more stable and better maintained. The developer also said earlier plans had envisioned even more units but that 24 is needed to make the project cost‑effective.
Commissioners and several neighbors raised objections about density, access and an existing easement that cuts across the property. One commissioner said the county’s rule is explicit: “I’m not gonna violate an ordinance for you to build 24 units when it says 3 acres,” and added that a variance should address hardship, not profitability.
The chair encouraged the parties to try to resolve the easement and access issues but concluded that the board could not set aside the acreage requirement without a showing of hardship. The chair then moved that the board not approve the developer’s request; the motion carried on a voice vote.
What happened next: commissioners also noted the developer had acknowledged prior plans that varied under earlier ordinances and that neighbors said the proposed layout would crowd adjacent lots and worsen a narrow access road. The board recommended the applicant and affected neighbors try to negotiate an access solution before returning with additional documentation.
Next steps: the denial leaves the developer the option to revise the proposal to comply with the 3‑acre requirement or to pursue a formal variance with evidence of hardship. The board did not adopt any ordinance changes during the meeting.
