Tiny-home project hits permitting snag

7:47 p.m. March 3, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Builders at The Retreat at Whiskey Creek have twice started construction without first securing the required building permits, prompting a stop-work directive and renewed scrutiny of the county’s R-3 ordinance governing home size, setbacks, and what legally counts as a “structure.”

The issue surfaced during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday, March 3, at the County Building, where Chairman Dexter Golden said county staff had ordered work to stop and denied a permit application over how the ordinance defines the maximum allowable square footage.

Second Start Without a Permit

Golden said the developer began building a home before purchasing a permit, was told to stop, and later returned to apply once paperwork was assembled. Golden said a second home was started without a permit after the first issue arose.

Golden said the developer was warned that fines could apply and emphasized the need to verify setbacks, particularly near neighboring property. According to Golden, the developer claimed they were told a foundation had to be in place to obtain a 911 address before applying for a permit.

Board member Scott Fruehauf summarized the confusion: “You’ve got to have a building permit to get a foundation, but you can’t get a building permit without an address, and you can’t have an address until you have a foundation.”

Commission members challenged that understanding, saying builders typically secure a permit before an address is issued. By the end of the discussion, Golden said the developer had again stopped work and acknowledged a misunderstanding. Golden also noted that the county did not assess late fees for the earlier permit attempt.

Home Size Dispute Hinges on ‘Structure’

Golden said the dispute centers on how the county’s R-3 ordinance calculates maximum allowable square footage – and whether porches and decks count toward the limit.

Golden said the home measures roughly 1,100 to 1,200 square feet when porches and decks are included. Under the R-3 ordinance, the maximum allowed is 799 square feet.

County staff denied the application, saying the proposal exceeds the district’s 799-square-foot limit as written and currently enforced.

The developer’s position, Golden said, is that the heated-and-cooled living area is 799 square feet and that exterior features account for the larger total. Officials noted the ordinance does not specify whether porches/decks count.

County officials are enforcing the ordinance based on the term “structure,” which Golden said he interprets to mean the full footprint – not just habitable square footage.

That distinction matters beyond the size limit because roofed extensions can also trigger setback requirements.

“Anything else that’s got a roof over [it], it’s got to be in the setback,” board member Jeff Ross said, describing how staff evaluates whether porches and similar features encroach beyond allowed building lines. Golden said the main footprint appears compliant, and roofed projections still meet setback lines.

Developer Expected to Seek BZA Relief

Golden said developer Chip Hayes is expected to take the matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals and seek relief related to the size limit or how the ordinance is being applied. Hayes was not present at Tuesday night’s meeting.

Golden cautioned against creating a precedent that could expand beyond a single home.

“If they do it for one, they’re going to want to do it for all of them,” he said, noting that dozens of additional homes are planned within the development.

Board member Jim Crawford argued the long-term fix is not an exception, but clearer ordinance language that matches how square footage is commonly calculated in real estate and property assessment – typically based on heated-and-cooled living area.

“Square footage is square footage,” Crawford said, urging the county to spell out whether the cap refers to habitable area, taxable square footage, or a broader measurement that includes porches and decks.

Members agreed that tightening the language could reduce the risk of inconsistent enforcement – and potential legal exposure – if future builders cite this case to justify larger homes under the current “structure” wording.

Neighbor Raises Property, Access Concerns

Neighbor Aurelia Swann told the commission the developer previously placed building materials on her land and that equipment encroached on what she described as a privately owned road. Swann said she called the sheriff to have equipment removed and asked whether the county could intervene to prevent future encroachment.

Golden said alleged dumping or trespass on private property is generally a civil matter between landowners rather than a Planning and Zoning enforcement issue. Chip Swann, however, said the minutes indicate a fence was required along a property line – something the neighbor said has not been installed.

Golden said the development remains in infrastructure phases, including sewer and water work, and suggested fencing could be addressed as construction progresses, while reiterating that private property disputes are typically outside the commission’s scope.

What Happens Next

Hayes is expected to bring the size-definition issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Separately, the commission said it will pursue an ordinance “cleanup” to clearly define how square-footage limits are calculated — whether by heated-and-cooled living area, taxable square footage, or total structural footprint, including roofed porches and decks.

The Board of Zoning Appeals meets on the third Tuesday of each month as needed. The next meeting is March 17 at 5:30 p.m. in the County Building basement, 241 Main St.

Community Partners