Sandy Cross Road building variance remains tabled in Franklin County

Franklin County’s consideration of a request to build a metal accessory structure before a house on Sandy Cross Road remains unresolved. Board of Commissioners records list variance V-2026-001 for Zachary and Kayleen Hill’s roughly 1.3-acre Carnesville tract, Map/Parcel 030/024/A13, as tabled; the latest board agenda cited in the county profile records a 5-0 tabling rather than a final vote on the request.

The case turns on the sequence of development allowed in the SR, or Suburban Residential, district. The Hills are seeking an exception to the Unified Development Code so a metal accessory building may go up before a principal dwelling. That decision would determine what the owners may build now on the identified residential tract and gave residents a formal public-hearing process in which to follow or weigh in before county action.

The matter first appeared in the supplied county record on April 6, when the Board of Commissioners placed it on both its public-hearing and regular-meeting agendas. Ten days later, the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled its own consideration. Board agendas on May 4 again referred to a public hearing, without establishing a new action on the variance, and the Planning and Zoning Commission listed the request again on May 21. Those repeated listings show the proposal stayed in the county process; they do not themselves show that construction authority was granted.

The Hills’ request seeks the flexibility to erect the metal accessory building before a home is built. Planning and Zoning’s listed recommendation was denial on a 3-1 vote, placing the commission against the requested exception. County commissioners, meanwhile, are the body whose agendas show the matter being tabled. The agendas establish scheduled public consideration, but do not provide a fuller account of the owners’ rationale, the dissenting planner’s view, or public comment.

The variance is a proposal, not a documented permit or completed building project. The official material identifies the requested exception and records a tabling, including the 5-0 tabling noted on the later Board of Commissioners agenda. It does not document a final approval or denial, a building permit, a construction start, or any change actually made to the Sandy Cross Road property. A planning recommendation to deny is not the same as a final Board decision.

Residents watching the case should look for V-2026-001 on a future Board of Commissioners agenda and then for meeting minutes recording any final action. The central question still undecided is whether the Hills will receive a variance allowing the accessory structure to precede a principal dwelling. Until a later county record resolves that question, the timing of any authorized building on the tract remains unknown.