Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters raise complaints about fiber‑optic work and urge changes to animal ordinance
Summary
During public comment Patricia Ann Varnadore accused Live Oak Fiber of repeated private‑property intrusions and improper installation practices; Robert Michael Kennedy urged commissioners to amend animal control/FA rules to address backyard livestock and roosters in long‑established residential neighborhoods.
Two members of the public used the April 17 Glynn County public‑comment period to press county officials on separate quality‑of‑life concerns: alleged improper private‑property incursions by a fiber‑optic contractor and suggestions to expand animal‑control rules to limit livestock in long‑standing residential neighborhoods.
Patricia Ann Varnadore told commissioners that Live Oak Fiber crews repeatedly entered private property, disturbed live oaks and other landscaping, removed a property marker and installed a switching station on her land without appropriate easement authorization. Varnadore said a main line from Savannah was shot through her property and that the company had not followed required procedures such as calling G‑Dig before trenching. She said she has repeatedly asked the company not to return without her present and that she has reported the matter to the sheriff’s office and to magistrate court; she said she has also engaged an arborist. Varnadore told the board she believes the installations will affect property values and resale disclosures.
Robert Michael (Mike) Kennedy, speaking on animal control and land‑use issues in FA‑zoned areas, said a tenant recently placed chickens and roosters on a leased half‑acre lot next to his property, and that roosters were encroaching on adjacent yards and creating a nuisance. Kennedy urged the county to consider adding language to FA (farm/acreage) regulations or to the proposed animal ordinance amendments to protect long‑established residential neighborhoods by specifying minimum lot sizes or buffers for livestock and by explicitly restricting roosters. He said state law leaves regulation of these matters to the county and asked commissioners to consider changes to avoid forcing neighbors into civil nuisance actions.
The chair acknowledged both speakers; no direct board action was taken at the meeting on either subject. County staff or relevant agencies were not recorded in the transcript as providing immediate responses beyond assurances that the board had heard the comments.
Why it matters: The fiber complaint raises potential property‑rights and permitting enforcement issues involving utility contractors working in residential areas; the animal concerns raise questions about how county zoning and animal control rules should balance rural uses and long‑established residential neighborhoods.
Ending: Commissioners did not take immediate action at the meeting; both topics may prompt follow‑up from county staff or be raised on future agendas.
