A Spring Hill resident told the City Council during the citizen-participation period on July 10 that he had been cited for installing a freestanding carport without a required permit and asked the council for information on appeals or variance options.

Mark Jenkins, who gave his address as 119 East Nichols Street, said he recently purchased a kit-style carport and believed it was not a permanent structure because it is set on pegs rather than poured footings. Jenkins said he received a notice that he needed a permit and was told by code enforcement that a carport in his location would not be permitted because the city code requires carports to be behind the property fence line. He said moving the carport behind the fence would require removing trees, correcting drainage/flooding issues, and would cost an estimated $3,000–$5,000; the carport cost him about $1,500.

Jenkins said he asked the enforcement officer about an appeals process but was told none was available and that the carport needed to be removed within 10 days or he would receive a citation; he said he has since received a citation. He said he offered to pay any permit fee or penalty but was not given that option and planned to pursue court options. Jenkins asked the city to consider variance or other remedies so he could protect his vehicle, which he uses when delivering packages for work.

City staff told Jenkins they would provide him with the documents he requested. The council took no formal action during the citizen-participation portion; staff later said they would deliver documents and the resident planned to pursue the court process.

Why it matters: The comment highlights a code-enforcement dispute about the distinction between temporary and permanent carport structures, the location requirement in the municipal code, and limits on administrative appeal routes. It also raised the potential cost burden for a homeowner required to relocate the structure.