Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Driveway Slope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sevierville board approves variance for steep secondary driveway at 922 Beech Road
Summary
The Sevierville Board of Zoning Appeals on June 4 approved a variance allowing a secondary driveway with an initial slope of about 30% (remainder ~18%) to serve an accessory building at 922 Beech Road; the motion passed 5–1.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Driveway Slope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sevierville Board of Zoning Appeals voted June 4 to grant a variance permitting a secondary driveway with an initial slope of about 30% and a remainder slope near 18% at 922 Beech Road to serve an accessory building.
Corey Divel, Development Director, told the board the request concerns a secondary driveway serving a recently constructed accessory building behind an existing residence; the primary driveway serving the house meets city standards. Divel said site topography and setback requirements limiting placement of the accessory structure make relocating the driveway difficult.
Commissioners discussed the intent of the driveway-slope regulation in Section 4.6.2.12, which sets maximum slopes of 10% for the initial 20 feet of residential driveways and 15% thereafter. Several commissioners said the ordinance was primarily adopted to address safety risks tied to steep primary driveways and noted this case differs because it concerns a secondary access to an accessory structure rather than the main residence.
Daryl Roberts moved to approve the variance; Shane Patterson seconded. The motion passed 5–1, with Vice Chairman Butch Stott recorded in opposition.
The board’s action allows the proposed secondary driveway measurements—initial section at approximately 30% and remainder at about 18%—despite exceeding the numeric limits in Section 4.6.2.12. The record notes the property tax reference as Tax Map 61G Group C Parcel 33.00 and identifies Keith Howard as the applicant. No public forum comments were recorded on the request.
The board proceeded to its next agenda item after the vote.
