Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long County approves Morgan Tract variances over objections about sidewalks
Summary
The Long County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 to approve three variances for the Morgan Tract despite objections from a developer and the tract’s attorney that sidewalk requirements would be a liability and an added burden to the county and homeowners.
The Long County Board of Commissioners voted to approve three variances for the Morgan Tract on Dec. 1, 2020, after a split vote that exposed disagreement among commissioners over sidewalk requirements.
Commissioner Mike Phillips moved to approve Variance V-020-002, seconded by Chairman Robert Parker; Commissioners David Richardson and Mike Riddle opposed and the motion passed 3-2. Identical 3-2 votes followed for Variances V-020-003 and V-020-004.
Attorney Paul Robertson, speaking during the public hearing, argued against requiring sidewalks, saying installing sidewalks off Highway 84 could create liability and that the added obligation would be a burden on the county. Developer Bill Nutting told the board homeowners should have the choice and that the developer did not intend to connect sidewalks to Highway 84. Planning and Zoning Administrator Ms. Phillips said the variances had been approved by the planning board prior to the hearing.
The votes split along familiar lines: Richardson and Riddle opposed the motions while Parker and Phillips supported them; Vice Chairman Clifton DeLoach participated by teleconference and the motions carried 3-2. The record shows motions were moved by Commissioner Phillips and seconded by Chairman Parker for each variance.
The board did not place conditions on the variances in the recorded motions and did not adopt a separate requirement to construct sidewalks off Highway 84. The practical effect is that the variances will allow the Morgan Tract preliminary plat to proceed without the sidewalk configuration urged by planning staff or commenters.
No timeframe for implementation or additional conditions were specified in the meeting record. The board closed the public hearing by unanimous procedural action before reopening for the regular session.
