Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochran council accepts city attorney's view that no variance is needed for Ann Street subdivision
Summary
After residents urged denial, the Cochran City Council voted 3–1 to accept the city attorney's legal opinion that three pre‑platted lots at Ann Street and 10th Street are legally nonconforming and can be built on without a variance under the 2020 zoning code changes.
The Cochran City Council on July 8 accepted the city attorney's legal opinion that a request to create three buildable lots at the corner of Ann Street and 10th Street does not require a zoning variance, despite vocal neighborhood opposition.
The public hearing opened at 6:20 p.m. and drew several nearby homeowners who said the proposed subdivision would not fit the neighborhood's character. "Three houses on a small lot will not fit in with the character of the neighborhood," said Susie Gough, who said she walks the area regularly. Neighbors raised concerns about lot depth, potential precedent for denser development, and property values.
Representing the property owner, realtor Joe Meadows told the council the parcels were platted in the 1960s and described the proposal as infill: "we're not developing lots...we're just utilizing what's there," he said, noting proposed house sizes would exceed prior deed restrictions and that lot coverage would remain under the 25% maximum.
City Attorney Jim Elliott reviewed the zoning code and relevant provisions for nonconforming lots. Elliott told the council that because the subdivision was platted prior to the city's original 1984 ordinance, the parcels appear to qualify as legally nonconforming and therefore may be built upon consistent with code provisions. He cited the city's nonconforming-lot and legal-nonconforming-use sections in his analysis.
Council members debated whether it was appropriate to hold a public hearing if a variance might not be required. After discussion, Council Member Gary Ates moved to follow the attorney's advice that no variance is necessary; Council Member Carla Coley seconded. The council recorded the roll call: Ates — Yes; Coley — Yes; Trecia Gardner — Yes; Dianne Lester — No. The motion passed 3–1.
The council also noted a written statement from absent Council Member Shane Savant, read into the record, indicating he had spoken with neighbors and opposed granting the variance.
Next steps: The city's legal interpretation leaves the property owner able to pursue building under the existing zoning framework. Residents and council members concerned about precedent said they will monitor future applications and consider ordinance changes if needed.
