Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Variance request to relax front setback for Tim Jenkins denied after board falls short of four‑fifths
Summary
The Planning Board denied VR26‑01 on May 7 after a 5‑1 vote in favor failed to meet the six‑member (four‑fifths) threshold required for variances. The request sought to reduce the front setback from 50 ft to 44 ft after a resurvey found the existing manufactured unit encroached by about 5.21 ft.
The Anson County Planning Board failed to grant a requested variance to reduce a front setback for a manufactured dwelling on May 7, after board members voted 5‑1 in favor but fell short of the six‑member (four‑fifths) threshold required to approve variances.
Staff explained VR26‑01 was filed by Tim Jenkins (not present due to a family visitation) after a resurvey of the parcel off Parson Grove Church Road found property corners had shifted following timber harvest, leaving an already‑placed manufactured unit 5.21 feet inside the required 50‑foot front setback. Planning staff said the unit was permitted earlier on the basis of the then‑assumed property corners and that discovery of the error occurred when Jenkins sought to subdivide the parcel.
"As a consequence of those disturbed corners ... that mobile home was 5.21 feet over the front setback," planning staff told the board when presenting the case. Staff described the R40 zoning setback table (50 ft front, 15 ft side, 40 ft rear), explained a variance runs with the land, and noted the board may impose conditions. Staff and several board members discussed whether the applicant could move the unit and the practical complications of relocating septic and utilities.
Adjoining property owners Carrie Helms and Heath Ricketts spoke at the hearing. Helms said neighbors were concerned about future intensification if the parcel were subdivided: "We're basically putting a mobile home park in the backyard of this house," she said, while clarifying they did not seek forcible removal of the existing unit.
Board members debated a conditioned approval that would make any relief apply only to the existing unit (reverting to standard setbacks if the unit were moved or replaced). A motion to approve the variance with that condition was made and seconded; members voted five in favor and one opposed, but the motion failed because state‑law and county rules require six affirmative votes to grant a variance on the seven‑member board.
Planning staff told the board the applicant may appeal the denial to the Superior Court of Anson County by petition for a writ of certiorari within 30 days. The planning department also noted staff practice in the county does not generally require modern surveys prior to initial permitting for rural parcels, a fact several board members cited as background to explain how the error occurred and why such variances occasionally arise.
The board treated public‑education options — including text‑amendment work to add alternates to the board and clearer guidance for applicants — as part of ongoing planning work to reduce similar disputes in the future.
