Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies access‑variance for Deer Trace Road lot, allows applicant to return with proof of road ownership
Summary
The Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals denied an access‑variance request July 16 for a 4.58‑acre tract on Deer Trace Road because the road's ownership and any easement were not documented; the board included language allowing the applicant to return without a fee if they later produce title or easement documentation.
At its July 16 meeting the Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals considered an access‑variance request from Jeff DeGraw seeking permission to build a single‑family home on an existing 4.58‑acre tract off Deer Trace Road.
DeGraw said the lot was created and recorded in 1974 and identified residential use in the recorded restrictions, but the subdivision road shown on the plat was never accepted by the county. "The county has not accepted the road," DeGraw told the board, adding he could not find an owner via the tax assessor or register of deeds and that without a variance the property would be left with "very limited practical use." He said he was not seeking to subdivide further but only requested "the minimum relief necessary to allow 1 home.".
Resident Key Adcock, who identified himself as the owner of properties at 171 and 176 Deer Trace Road, described maintaining the road and paying for a water line over 25 years and warned that approving the variance would invite future requests: "So this particular variance is all about financial gain," he said.
Board members and staff reviewed options for resolving access when title or ownership is unclear: a recorded easement, court‑ordered relief to establish an easement where ownership cannot be located, or bringing the road up to county standards so it could be formally accepted. Several members said the board could not grant a variance without some evidence of access rights or a court finding.
A committee member moved to deny the access‑variance but include language allowing DeGraw to return without a fee if he later provided documentation proving ownership of the road or an easement. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor by voice vote (multiple 'aye' responses recorded). The board's denial was entered with the explicit option that the applicant may return with proper paperwork to revisit the matter.
The board advised the applicant to pursue a title search, obtain an easement, or seek a court determination if necessary. The meeting adjourned after the vote.
