Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends variance for Whitaker minor subdivision; matter to proceed to Board of Zoning Appeals
Summary
The commission recommended approval of a lot‑depth variance for a proposed two‑lot split of a roughly 5.9‑acre parcel, contingent on the applicant receiving a variance from the BZA; staff explained the city code limits lot depth to 4.5 times the lot width and raised potential utility/well issues to be addressed in later reviews.
The Green City Planning & Zoning Commission voted Aug. 20 to recommend a variance for a proposed minor subdivision by applicant Dwayne Whitaker, with the recommendation contingent on the applicant obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Whitaker said he intends to split an approximately 5.9‑acre parcel at 6549 Waterloo Road into two single‑family lots so family members can build on the site. He said the owner raised the price of the full parcel and the split would allow the family to proceed.
Planning staff explained the proposed division would create parcels of about 3.1 and 2.3 acres. Under local code, lot depth at the building line may not exceed 4.5 times lot width; for the proposed configuration the maximum permitted depth would be about 616 feet, and Parcel 2 would require a variance because its depth would exceed that limit. Staff noted there may also be an abandoned or extant well that the applicant will need to address in later site review and that the matter will go to the BZA the next night for the required appeals variance.
A commissioner asked why the 4.5 depth‑to‑width rule exists; staff said the regulation prevents creation of extremely narrow frontages with very deep, unusable rear land — a pattern that historically produced parcels hundreds or thousands of feet deep with little usable land at the rear. Given the existing lot configuration and the locations of surrounding features (including nearby Raintree Golf Course), staff said there were no apparent alternatives that avoided the need for a variance.
A motion to recommend approval of the variance contingent on the applicant receiving the BZA variance passed on a roll call vote of commissioners present.
The commission also tabled the Spring Hill Villas item to the Sept. 17 meeting because the project's representative did not attend. The commission approved the July 16 meeting minutes and adjourned; staff reported the Sept. 17 agenda will include Spring Hill Villas and a building/site plan.
