After review of deed records, Coffee County board grants 50-foot access variance on Scenic Road

The Coffee County Board of Appeals considered a request April 16, 2026, for a variance to the county’s 50-foot access requirement on a Scenic Road parcel and took action in two phases: the board first tabled the item to verify ownership and easement documentation, then later took the application off the table, reviewed deed evidence and approved the variance under the county’s D4 standard.

Applicant Sarah Banks (S4) told the board she and co-applicants rely on a 50-foot-wide strip of access shared by seven parcels to reach a buildable lot behind other properties. Neighbors and residents questioned whether the strip is a formal easement or private access, who owns the underlying land (discussion referenced the Tahoma Utility Authority — TUA — and the Tennessee Valley Authority — TVA), and whether the existing road would meet county standards for acceptance and emergency access.

Several residents reported they paved portions of the road and maintain it themselves. “We are all in the same boat,” a resident said, noting that residents paid to pave the shared drive and that the public utility authority had only recently acknowledged ownership of some underlying parcels. Board members (S3 and others) said because ownership and easement documentation were unclear, the item should be tabled until staff could verify deeds and utility records.

Committee member (S3) moved to table the application to the next meeting to allow staff and the applicant time to produce documentary evidence about the easement and ownership; the motion passed. The board explicitly said the applicant would not need to reapply or pay another filing fee if they return with documentation.

Later in the meeting the board took the Scenic Road application off the table, the applicant provided warranty-deed language and a schematic showing a 50-foot easement across the lots, and Committee member (S3) moved to grant the variance under D4 (harmony with the county’s development intent and not injurious to the neighborhood). The motion was seconded and the board voted to approve the variance. Staff asked the applicant to email the deed documentation to Cindy Roper for the record.

The discussion centered on the legal status of the easement and whether the county would accept the private road for maintenance; board members repeatedly noted that acceptance by the county would require upgrades to bring the road to county specifications and that, until such upgrades occur, maintenance remains the responsibility of the lot owners.