Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals rejects motion to deny request to split 6‑acre Old Hillsborough Highway parcel
Summary
At its July 16 meeting the Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals considered a request to subdivide a 6‑acre parcel on Old Hillsborough Highway into four lots under a special‑question variance; the board discussed infrastructure, compatibility with surrounding 6–8‑acre lots and hardship requirements and ultimately a motion to deny the variance failed.
The Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals met July 16 to consider a special‑question variance that would allow subdivision of a 6‑acre parcel on Old Hillsborough Highway into four lots smaller than the county's 5‑acre minimum.
A presenter who identified themself as "Umbarger" told the board the property was bought in February 2026 as an investment and that the owner planned to lay out four lots. "Mr. Umberger's got a 6 acre piece of land that he has bought as investment property, and he seeks to subdivide it into 4 lots," the presenter said, adding that soils work showed the lots would "perk" and that the highway department raised no driveway safety concerns.
Kendall read the ordinance language the board uses to evaluate a special‑question (variance) request, detailing seven criteria including minimum lot‑size and dimensional standards, compatibility with surrounding properties, access and infrastructure, and that the subdivision must not "contribute to environmental degradation" or negatively affect neighboring property values. "A subdivision of land into 4 or fewer parcels of less than 5 acres in the A‑1 district may be permitted ... subject to the following conditions," Kendall read.
Board members questioned whether the parcel was compatible with the rural character of surrounding properties, noting several neighboring parcels are typically 6 to 8 acres. One member said a three‑lot split with roughly 2‑acre parcels would be more compatible with adjacent lots; others said the variance standard requires a property‑specific hardship rather than mere financial loss.
Two nearby residents spoke against the subdivision. Wanda Wells, who said she owns about 30–31 acres next door, asked the board to "see it just stay 1 lot." John Dimitri urged preserving agricultural land and warned new houses could lead to conflicts over pesticides and ordinary farm operations.
After discussion a committee member moved to deny the special‑question variance on compatibility and agricultural‑character grounds; the motion was seconded and the chair called for a vote. The transcript records the chair asking for ayes and then stating "It fails." The record does not show a separate roll‑call tally or a formal finding of hardship in the applicant's favor.
Because the board concluded the record did not clearly demonstrate the exceptional circumstances or property‑specific hardship required to support a variance, members cited concern about preserving the rural character along Old Hillsborough Highway. The applicant thanked the board for its time and left the meeting.
The board did not adopt any condition allowing the applicant to return without a fee for this item; the applicant may pursue other administrative options (rezoning, higher‑level review) or provide additional evidence of hardship in a future application. The board moved on to its next agenda item and later adjourned.
