Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning committee denies 4.2-foot setback variance at 1718 Brown Ridge
Summary
The Tupelo Planning Committee unanimously denied FLEX VAR 25-03, a request to reduce a required 10-foot side setback to 4.2 feet for a nearly complete house at 1718 Brown Ridge; staff had recommended denial citing a roughly 58% variance and members cited precedent concerns.
The Tupelo Planning Committee voted unanimously on April 6 to deny FLEX VAR 25-03, a request to reduce the required 10-foot side setback at 1718 Brown Ridge to 4.2 feet.
Applicant Tony Moore, who identified himself as a general contractor, told the committee the house is about 90% complete and that he and the property owner had attempted for about a year to acquire an adjacent parcel to cure the setback issue. Moore said he proposed a lot-line swap as a remedy and provided a survey to the committee.
Tanner Newman, the city’s Director of Development Services, told the committee staff’s recommendation was denial because the request represents “about a 58% variance” from code. City building official Mr. Reagan said the adjoining owner had at one point engaged on price but had since stopped responding; Reagan said the practical alternative would require removing roughly an 8-foot portion of the house and rebuilding to meet the setback.
Committee members repeatedly cited precedent and the need to uphold the written code. One member said granting the variance would risk a ‘‘snowball’’ of similar mistakes and departures from setback standards. After discussion a motion to deny was made (the transcript records the motion as “Motion by Ms. Moore”) and seconded by Ms. Thompson; the committee denied the request by unanimous show of hands.
Newman advised the applicant that anyone wishing to appeal the committee’s decision has three days to file an appeal with the city council; if no appeal is filed within that period the committee’s decision stands.
The committee’s denial was procedural and did not impose additional penalties; the minutes record staff guidance that further work to demolish and reconstruct the affected portion of the house would be the owner’s remaining remedy if the variance is not granted.
