Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sevierville zoning board denies variance for accessory structure at 1622 Upper Ridge Court

Sevierville Board of Zoning Appeals · June 4, 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 Sevierville Board of Zoning Appeals on May 7 unanimously denied a variance request by Fatima Al-Athari to allow an accessory structure in the side yard of 1622 Upper Ridge Court after staff said the structure had already been placed and commissioners questioned whether a hardship existed.

The Sevierville Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a variance request on May 7 from Fatima Al-Athari to allow an accessory structure in the side yard of 1622 Upper Ridge Court.

Corey Divel, the city’s Development Director, told the board that the structure had already been installed and was positioned to the side of the residence rather than in the rear yard as required by the city’s zoning regulations. Divel said the house’s angle and its location on a cul-de-sac make the structure “not highly visible” from the street.

Board members examined photographs and site materials included in the application packet and raised questions about easements, setback consistency, and whether the property met the legal standard of hardship required to justify a variance. Vice Chairman Butch Stott and other commissioners focused discussion on maintaining setback standards and the implications of allowing an exception where the structure had already been built.

Board member Daryl Roberts made a motion to deny the request; the motion received a second from board member Shane Patterson and passed with a unanimous vote. The board took no further staff reports and adjourned at 6:43 p.m.

The denial leaves the property owner responsible for bringing the accessory structure into compliance with applicable setback requirements or seeking other remedies available under city code. The board did not record any conditions or alternative approvals at the meeting.