Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defends procedural change on zoning comments; rules and three variances decided
Summary
Commissioners cited a legal opinion limiting public oral comment on zoning decisions at the commission meeting, prompting criticism in public comment; the board also decided three planning and zoning variance requests—denied one, approved one-acre split for another, and denied a third.
A procedural clarification from commissioners about public comment on zoning triggered criticism during the public-comment period and preceded decisions on three variance requests at the April 3 Walker County Board of Commissioners meeting.
Chairwoman Angela Teams read the county code language limiting public comment on zoning decisions to written submissions prior to the hearing (she cited "per Walker County code chapter 22-109c"). Several members of the public questioned suddenly enforcing an older county rule and urged broader public participation. Jamie Hossen asked whether the county had checked legal enforceability, saying the change reduced transparency for zoning decisions; the chair replied the county had obtained a legal opinion and said the planning and zoning commission remains the body where public comment is heard in the first instance.
Later in the meeting the board considered three variance requests that had been before the Planning Commission. John Pearsley, Walker County planning director, summarized each case and the planning commission's recommendation:
- Raymond Keith Murdoch, property at 643 Kensington Road: Planning Commission recommended denial because the applicant had options to meet A-1 zoning minimums without a variance. The board voted to deny the variance.
- Michael Lettson (presenting as Michael Watts at the meeting), property at 1307 Lee Mason Road: The applicant initially requested a half-acre variance but agreed to a one-acre split, which the planning director said would meet the joint comprehensive plan. The board voted to approve a one-acre variance.
- Safe Future Real Estate Investments LLC, properties at 20, 36 and 86 Braxton Lane: The planning commission recommended denial of reduced lot-size variances; the board voted to deny the variances. Planning staff said the lot sizes requested (about 10,820 square feet) would fall below county ordinance minimums (15,000 square feet for single-family lots) even if the comprehensive plan for that corridor allows higher density.
The public-comment exchange earlier in the meeting focused on the change in where public testimony on zoning would be heard and whether the public had sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed zoning approvals. The chair said the county's legal counsel had been consulted and that planning and zoning commission meetings remain the venue where most public input is customarily heard prior to decisions by the full commission.
Each variance was decided by motion and vote before the board adjourned its hearings.
