Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves shed variance, denies ADU conversion after contested hearing
Summary
Council granted a variance to relocate a shed into Zone 2 to remove it from the 100-year floodplain at 277 Emerson Drive, but denied a requested variance to convert a detached garage into an accessory dwelling at 403 East McPherson Drive after a tied board vote (3-3).
At its May 4 meeting the Mebane City Council handled two quasi-judicial variance requests with different outcomes: council approved a variance to relocate a shed at 277 Emerson Drive into Zone 2 to move it out of the 100-year FEMA floodplain, and denied a requested variance to convert a detached garage at 403 East McPherson Drive into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Planning staff (Ashley, S19) explained the 277 Emerson Drive shed had been installed without permits, was partly in the FEMA 100-year floodplain and in the Zone 1 stream buffer; staff and the applicant proposed moving the shed to Zone 2 and seeking a setback variance to stay outside the floodplain. Steven Taylor (S21), representing the owner, said moving the shed to Zone 2 would avoid removing the structure entirely and would prevent an "unnecessary hardship" for the owner. After council discussion, a motion to approve the variances passed.
By contrast, the council considered a request at 403 East McPherson Drive to convert an existing detached garage into an ADU. The property owner, Malik Khan (S6), said the existing garage predated current setbacks and that converting the structure would provide housing for family and improve an already built structure. Neighbors, including Kathy Martin (S23), opposed on the basis of neighborhood character and potential impacts on elderly adjacent homeowners. Staff reviewed state variance standards and noted an ADU must meet rear setback and separation requirements; council debated whether the situation met the hardship standard. The vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. Under the board of adjustment rules the requested variance required an 80% approval threshold, so the motion failed and the variance was denied.
What happened next: council discussed options available to the applicant, including removing the garage and building a smaller ADU that meets setbacks or returning with a revised application. Several council members urged applicants to work with staff to explore alternatives.
Why it matters: the decisions affect property rights, ADU availability and floodplain protections. The Emerson decision resolved a code violation by allowing a relocation with limitations; the McPherson denial preserves current setback protections and may limit a potential rental unit in that block.
Next steps: staff will update affected records and the applicant at McPherson may consider demolition/rebuild or a downsized ADU that conforms to setback and square-footage rules before returning to the board.
