Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stephens County planning commission denies 15-foot setback variance for Corbin Tao

Stephens County Planning Commission · June 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Stephens County Planning Commission voted June 2 to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny a requested 15-foot front-yard setback variance at 610 Fezant Mountain Road, finding the application did not meet the statutory hardship standard; the applicant said topography and added costs create a hardship and may appeal at the Board of Commissioners.

Stephens County — The Stephens County Planning Commission on June 2 voted to deny a requested 15-foot reduction to a 40-foot front-yard setback for 610 Fezant Mountain Road, a variance sought by applicant Corbin Tao.

Christian, a Stephens County planning staff member, opened the item by saying the county code (Chapter 59, Article 8) requires a hardship showing for a variance and that staff’s review found the application did not meet that legal standard. “Staff recommendation is to deny the requested setback variance as it does not meet the required hardship,” Christian said.

Tao, who identified himself as the property owner, told the commission he and his father have owned the three-acre parcel for more than 30 years and said the topography at the end of the cul-de-sac and the cost of additional site work make building in compliance with the 40-foot setback difficult. “All I’m trying to do is get a little variance…Trinity is trying to build me a house for my family,” Tao said, adding that moving the house back would add “a minimum $10,000” and could push him into private mortgage insurance.

A neighbor, Richard Tile, spoke in support of Tao and described encountering rock and steep drop-offs on nearby lots, saying that building without some leeway would require extensive blockwork and deeper excavation. “I hit 7 foot…you go down 7 foot and you’re going to hit rock,” Tile said, urging flexible treatment for a cul-de-sac lot.

During deliberations commissioners reviewed the legal standard for hardship. Christian clarified that financial cost alone is not a permissible hardship under the county’s rules while topographical conditions may qualify. One commissioner said that, while sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, they believed the property could be developed to meet setbacks with additional site work and that the commission would follow staff’s recommendation. The motion to adopt staff’s recommendation carried on a voice vote.

After the vote Tao briefly addressed the commission again, expressing frustration and disappointment with the decision and saying the outcome would affect his family’s plans; the commission closed the item and moved on. The planning commission’s action is a recommendation; final approval or denial will be decided by the Stephens County Board of Commissioners at its next meeting, which staff said will be on Tuesday the 23rd.

What happens next: The Board of Commissioners will issue the final decision on the variance at its upcoming meeting; members of the public or the applicant may attend the Board meeting if they wish to pursue the matter further.