Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning commission, denies developer's request to remove second entrance at Tomlin Farm subdivision
Summary
After a public hearing with residents and staff, the Newton County Board of Commissioners denied a developer appeal to remove a secondary entrance in the Tomlin Farm subdivision, citing ordinance requirements for multiple access points and emergency access concerns.
Newton County commissioners on July 15 voted unanimously to deny an appeal that would have removed a second access point from the proposed Tomlin Farm subdivision plan, reversing the developer's request to reduce access from two roads to one.
The appeal (APP25-000002) concerned a revision to a preliminary plat (PP25-00001) for a 120.23-acre open-space conservation subdivision proposing 93 single-family lots on Byrd Road. The developer's attorney, Kirk Bellstone of Schmidt, Campbell & Russell, argued the county staff, transportation department and fire marshal had reviewed updated plans and recommended approval of a single entrance after agreed improvements; he said the second entrance would require a costly bridge across state waters and posed an unnecessary expense.
Development services staff described the project history and noted a final plat for phase 1 had vested parts of the original approval; transportation staff had expressed that the second entrance would be too short and too close to the other entrance to provide meaningful benefit while also requiring a stream crossing. Staff recommended approval of the revision subject to conditions to ensure fire access and signage.
During the public hearing, multiple neighbors raised safety and environmental concerns: Danny (476 Bird Road) and other residents said a single entrance would create emergency-access risks for the lots in the rear of the subdivision, increase traffic on Byrd Road, and remove green space and wildlife habitat. Mark Gardner cited specific sections of the Newton County Unified Development Ordinance and argued the proposal represented a major change that required new approvals and that mandatory language in the UDO (including Section 16-05-100 on access management) should be enforced.
After deliberation, Commissioner Long moved to deny the plat revision; the motion was seconded by Fisher Henderson. Commissioners said they were reluctant to weaken an ordinance standard intended to ensure emergency access and consistent subdivision design. The motion to deny carried unanimously.
Why it matters: minimum access-point requirements are intended to protect emergency response and traffic flow in subdivisions; rejecting this revision keeps the county's access-management standard in force for this project and signals that developers must meet UDO standards or pursue variance routes specified in county rules.
Next steps: the developer retains the right to revise plans, pursue a variance through the board of appeals where the UDO permits, or pursue alternative engineering solutions that meet county code. County staff listed conditions that would apply should a future, compliant revision be filed.
