Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies rezoning near new dollar store over access and easement concerns
Summary
Meigs County commissioners voted to deny a rezoning request affecting a parcel near a new dollar store after questions about whether the site had lawful access, utility easements and necessary state/TVA permits; commissioners directed the applicant to return after resolving access and permitting issues.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meigs County commissioners voted to deny a rezoning request affecting a parcel near the newly approved dollar store after discussing access, easement and permitting concerns.
The matter came before the commission as a first reading; commissioners noted planning and zoning had previously approved the zoning change, but that planning had not pointed out an access issue involving a private road. The applicant told the board they planned to install a culvert and a driveway crossing on their property to avoid crossing the neighbor’s private road. The applicant’s representative asked the board to defer action while they secured those improvements.
Commissioners raised specific concerns: whether the proposed commercial use had appropriate access to Highway 58; whether the access used a private subdivision road; the need for state (highway) approval for any new driveway or connector; utility easements bisecting the parcel; and deed restrictions that might restrict access. One commissioner summarized the board’s position: “This body is not comfortable with approving rezoning … with things up in the air.”
After discussion a motion and second were made to deny the rezoning as presented. Roll-call votes were taken and the commission denied the request. Commissioners advised the applicant to return after securing necessary permits and addressing access and easement issues through planning and zoning and, if necessary, in civil proceedings.
The denial was procedural rather than a final determination on the parcel’s suitability for commercial use; commissioners noted that if access and permitting matters are resolved the applicant could resubmit a complete application through planning and zoning.
