Archived story
As originally published
Franklin County commissioners have approved Eugene Pittman’s request to convert an older manufactured home at 2753 Prospect Road, near Toccoa, into a storage building. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated June 18 report that the Board of Commissioners approved variance V-2026-003 by a 3–2 vote for the roughly 2.24-acre tract, allowing the structure to remain under a nonresidential use rather than as a dwelling.
The decision matters because county officials had discussed the property as having two homes, and the variance creates a path for Pittman to keep the older manufactured home without continuing to treat it as housing. For nearby residents and the county, the remaining question is practical as well as legal: what will distinguish a storage building from a residence, and when will that change occur? The close commission vote underscores that the request was not a routine consensus decision.
The case entered the public process on May 21, when the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda placed Pittman’s request before the commission. At that meeting, according to the commission’s minutes, members discussed converting the old manufactured home into storage and considered possible conditions, including boarding its windows. The proposal then moved to the Board of Commissioners: its June 1 public-hearing and regular-meeting agendas listed the variance with a Planning Commission recommendation for conditional approval, 3–1. By the June 18 commission meeting, the minutes recorded that commissioners had approved the variance, 3–2.
Pittman told the June 1 public hearing that the seller of his new home had advised him to seek the variance, according to Board of Commissioners public-hearing minutes. Commissioner Smith commended him for bringing the request to the board. The Planning Commission’s earlier 3–1 conditional-approval recommendation indicates that a majority of that advisory body supported allowing the conversion with safeguards, while the eventual 3–2 Board vote shows that at least two commissioners did not support the request as approved. The records do not identify individual Board votes or explain the dissenting commissioners’ reasoning.
The variance itself is approved, not pending. But the June 18 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes report the Board’s result without reproducing the Board motion, naming the voters or setting out any approval conditions. That means window boarding was a discussed possibility, not a documented requirement; the county materials also do not establish whether utilities must be disconnected or when conversion work will begin. A June 18 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda repeated the 3–2 approval but recorded no additional action.
The next public indication of follow-through would be a county record spelling out implementation requirements, documenting an amendment, or showing work or compliance at the former home. Until then, the county’s land-use decision is settled: Pittman may convert the manufactured home to storage. What remains undecided in the public record is the conversion schedule and the specific rules governing the structure’s transition from a home to a storage building.