Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Split Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board takes no action on Redfern Village setback variances after divided vote
Summary
A request to adjust property lines and setbacks at 310–312 Redfern Village to dissolve a condominium association and convey fee-simple parcels produced divided board debate over existing encroachments at Nat’s Landing; a motion to deny produced a 2–1 split and was recorded as no action, with the applicant advised of an appeal option.
A Glynn County board heard extensive debate over a variance request and proposed lot split at 310–312 Redfern Village on Saint Simons Island but ultimately took no action after a divided vote.
Planning and zoning staff Maurice Postal said applicants sought variances under Glynn County zoning ordinance §713 so the existing structures would match current encroachments and enable a lot split that would give each business fee-simple ownership of its parcel. Postal told the board Nat’s Landing Restaurant already sits over its recorded property line and would be in setback violation under the proposed plat; he said Nat’s Landing has received multiple Glynn County building permits over the decades, including one in 2023, and staff recommended approval of the variance.
Surveyor Teeple Hill explained the recorded property line cuts through the Nat’s Landing building and described how the condominiumization created common elements; adjusting the parcel lines would give each business fee-simple ownership and allow dissolution of the condominium association.
Board members pressed several practical and fairness concerns. One member urged removal of a back-porch roof structure that sits near the parking area; another said the doctor who occupies one unit should not be penalized for prior work done by others. John Barnes of the building department told the board he had not researched how far back encroachments occurred and said, "the onus ultimately lies at any time when there is building going on, the onus lies upon those doing requesting the development or redevelopment of a particular area, not upon the county." That exchange underscored uncertainty about how prior permits and surveys were handled.
After extended discussion about conditions and the option to defer while owners attended and staff researched records, a member moved to deny ZV-2547310 and the motion was seconded. Board counsel clarified that approvals require three affirmative votes; the motion produced a 2–1 split and was therefore recorded as no action. Postal advised the applicant that they may appeal the board’s inaction to the Board of Commissioners.
The board did not adopt conditions or make a final determination on the lot-split plan; staff and members signaled the matter could return if the owners attended or if staff brought back additional research.
The meeting adjourned with no further business.
