Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blaine Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perry County Commission tables Blaine fire‑company storage building plan pending engineering review
Summary
The Perry County Planning Commission tabled a Blaine land‑development plan that would replace an old parsonage with a 50-by-70 storage building for a volunteer fire company, after discussion about setback relief, stormwater handling and potential historic‑resource checks.
The Perry County Planning Commission on an initial review asked staff to obtain an engineering evaluation before acting on a Blaine land‑development sketch that would remove an old parsonage and install a 50‑by‑70 storage building for a volunteer fire company.
Applicant representatives said the proposed building would be electric with no water or sewer connections and would store excess equipment and some vehicles. They requested multiple forms of relief from the county’s land‑development requirements, including reduced side/rear setbacks (existing offset roughly 10 feet versus ordinance requirements of 15–25 feet), waivers of a wetland study and preliminary plan submission, and an erosion‑and‑sedimentation control submission through the conservation district.
Commissioners raised several technical and regulatory issues. Staff and commissioners noted the plan’s stormwater approach — roof drains directed to an infiltration/seepage pit — and emphasized the need for soils testing and confirmation of the drainage path because there are no obvious street inlets at the site. A commissioner suggested a county‑engineer review: “If you folks don’t feel confident with the diagram… we could kick it out to the [consulting] engineer,” staff said.
Members also questioned whether the site’s old parsonage should be subject to a historic‑resource review. Blaine borough comments submitted to the county said the house “does not have any historical value” and recommended waiving a full historic study; commissioners asked staff to check state and federal registers and the county’s historic layers in GIS.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to table the application until the commission’s designated engineer completes a technical review; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
Next steps: staff will request a technical review from the commission’s consulting engineer (Ryan Jongusang was identified as the planning commission’s consulting reviewer during the meeting) and report back at the next scheduled meeting.
