Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meade County board agrees to move variance hearing earlier despite unresolved secondary-access concerns
Summary
On Jan. 6 the Meade County planning board approved an applicant request to move a variance hearing from April 7 to March 3, citing the applicant's financial issues. Board members raised safety and access concerns after learning the neighboring landowner will not provide a secondary access easement.
The Meade County planning board voted on Jan. 6 to allow an applicant to move a variance hearing from April 7 to March 3 after the applicant requested an earlier date because of financial difficulties.
The request arrived after January meetings; staff said the applicant sent a written request and asked for confirmation. Staff told the board the applicant’s realtor had not informed the applicant of the originally scheduled April hearing, and that the applicant wants to proceed sooner to protect a planned sale that lists the full acreage and house for sale online.
Board members urged caution. Several members described the secondary access road the applicant proposed as “sketchy” and said it includes a steep drop of roughly 100 feet in places. A staff member said the person who had been identified as the provider of the secondary access — referenced in the meeting as Mr. Lampy — had told staff he will not provide a written easement. The board discussed the safety implications of approving the variance without a secured secondary access and noted that, for variances, action requires the votes of the board members present and that absent members could affect the required two-thirds margin for approval.
Despite those concerns, a motion to reschedule the variance hearing to March 3 was made and seconded, and the board voted in favor. No numerical roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript; multiple board members answered “Aye.”
Why it matters: moving the hearing forward lets the applicant pursue permit or sale timelines tied to the property but may leave unresolved public-safety and access issues. Board members noted that absent or recused members at the March meeting could change the threshold required to approve the variance.
Next steps and context: staff said it will notify affected landowners about any changes and will convey the board’s concerns to the applicant. The board also reminded the applicant that written documentation and recorded easements are preferable before final approvals involving access are completed.
