Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks variances for 40‑lot Cove Creek subdivision in Tazewell County
Summary
Developer Robb Stinger asked the Tazewell County Planning Commission on Sept. 8, 2022, to grant two variances for a proposed 40‑lot subdivision at Cove Creek: one to avoid state‑standard paved roads and one related to sewage disposal; engineering recommended conditions and the items were polled for ratification in October.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Robb Stinger, the presenter, asked the Tazewell County Planning Commission on Sept. 8, 2022, to approve variances for a proposed 40‑lot subdivision at Cove Creek, requesting relief from road‑construction standards and from certain sewage‑disposal rules.
The request included two specific variance types: (1) not building roads to state standards on the several‑mile gravel access to the site, and (2) relief related to sewage disposal requirements. Stinger described the lots as “good size” and said he expects the land to percolate for septic systems; he told staff he would work with purchasers if tests failed. He also said he was willing to build a high‑quality gravel road but did not believe paving was necessary for the development.
Kenneth Dunford Jr., Director of County Engineering, said that because the variance is being requested the developer must meet notice requirements before final plats are presented to the Planning Commission. Dunford also recorded a precaution: if any lots fail perc or cannot support adequate on‑site sewage disposal, the developer must provide a remedy (for example, buy back affected lots or otherwise remedy the buyers’ loss). Dunford said Stinger acknowledged these obligations.
Because the commission did not have a quorum at the Sept. 8 meeting, Dunford polled members and recorded support; the minutes state the items will be placed on the October 2022 agenda for formal ratification by the Planning Commission. The minutes do not show a formal, in‑chamber vote with a quorum; the engineering department’s recommendation and the developer’s commitment to a buyer remedy were the principal staff‑level conditions recorded.
