Tiny house sparks big debate in Chickamauga
The Chickamauga Planning Commission, during its Jan. 16 meeting, discussed property lines, rental properties, and construction of a pool house versus a tiny house.
The Planning Commission reviewed the application of a Chickamauga resident who was requesting to have property at 205 Five Points Road annexed from Walker County into the city. It passed 4-0.
“This is to help make the lines clear,” Planning Commission member Jeff McDaniel said.
The second matter addressed involved an elderly resident who would not always be at home during certain parts of the year and was requesting permission to turn the property into an Airbnb rental property — that is, a short-term rental.
One of the neighbors to the property opposed the classification of C-1 (commercial) zoning for the prospective vacation rental property for all it could imply for neighboring residents.
Planning Commission members agreed the matter should be tabled to give them time to research a more appropriate classification for the property that would aptly describe its utilization.
The last matter discussed became heated when the contractor for a resident requested permission to build a pool house that would include a bathroom, kitchen, and upstairs room that could be viewed as a bedroom. According to the owner the upstairs room could be used as a changing room. Plumbing and electrical would be connected to the existing house system.
It was then discussed that the owner of the property at first proposed to use the prospective structure as a living suite for an elderly relative. When this proposal was shot down, the owner then asked if the pool house could be approved if rearranged and left the same size.
The owner was told it would need to be downsized to have a kitchen, bath, and closet area to store things in. The owner was told it was a hard “no” before approaching the Planning Commission.
The contractor insisted that his plans meet the code and that it shouldn’t matter what the structure will actually be used for. “It’s an accessory structure that meets your criteria and your code, which is the size. I don’t understand how you can tell us what they can put on the inside.”
“This could turn into a house with a rental property in the back,” McDaniel said.
“You could put a condition that it is not a rental,” the contractor argued.
“What you’ve drawn me here and what you have presented to me is a tiny house,”
McDaniel said. “You should not have sent this to me looking like this.”
“We aren’t going to just get up here and lie to you,” the contractor said. “We are going to get up here and show you what we would like to build that meets code. If you’re going to deny this …”
“I’ve got the code. I don’t need to be lectured on the code,” Planning Commission member Jeff McDaniel said.
“Where does it say we can’t do this?” the contractor asked.
“You can’t do this in the county, let alone the city,” McDaniel said. “I make a motion that we table this.”
The idea that the pool house could end up being used as a rental property in the future was debated, with no clear immediate resolution. The matter was tabled for another time.