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 ownership or easement proof
Summary
Jeff DeGraw sought an access variance to build one home on a 4.58‑acre lot created in 1974, arguing the recorded plat dedicates Deer Trace Road to public use but county records show no accepted road ownership. The board denied the variance but said the applicant may return without fee if he obtains documented ownership or an easement.
Jeff DeGraw told the Coffee County Board of Zoning Appeals that he sought a variance from section 2.030 so he could build a single‑family home on a 4.58‑acre tract recorded in 1974. He said the plat shows Deer Trace Road dedicated to public use but that county records do not show the road as accepted by the county and no clear owner of the right‑of‑way could be found in the assessor or register of deeds records.
DeGraw said the road currently serves three residences and that utilities—water and power—exist along the route, but county acceptance and a recorded easement were not evident in title records he checked. He told the board the property cannot be used for a reasonable residential purpose without relief and asked for the minimum relief necessary to allow a single home.
Resident Key Adcock, who identified himself as living at 171 Deer Trace Road, told the board he and others have maintained the road for decades, paid to run a water line and previously sought county acceptance without success. He said prior court proceedings and changes in deeds left the road in a problematic recorded state and argued the variance, if granted, could invite other similar requests.
Board members said the first step is establishing ownership or a recorded easement; several members advised DeGraw to provide proof (a title instrument, easement or court order) showing the right of way or an easement before the board could grant the access variance. One board member moved to deny the variance but include in the motion the condition that DeGraw may return without fee if he later presents the required documentation proving ownership or an easement. The motion was seconded and the chair called a voice vote; the chair declared, “Motion is denied.”
Board members discussed possible next steps, including a title search, court action to secure an easement, or bringing forward recorded deed evidence showing the road dedication. The denial was tied in the transcript to the absence of a clear recorded owner or easement; the board left it open for the applicant to return with documentation substantiating access rights.
