Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission approves Burkes Garden Methodist Church subdivision, grants septic variance and waives fee

Tazewell County Planning Commission · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tazewell County Planning Commission on Dec. 8 approved a subdivision to give Burkes Garden Methodist Church access to a septic system on a neighboring lot, granted a variance related to water/sewer requirements, and waived a $106 fee; the votes were unanimous among members present.

The Tazewell County Planning Commission voted Dec. 8 to approve a subdivision that adjusts property lines so Burkes Garden Methodist Church has legal access to a septic system located on neighboring property owned by Member Robert "Bob" Moss.

Attorney Alan McGraw of Altizer, Walk & White PLLC presented the subdivision and said he represents both parties. Kenneth Dunford Jr., director of county engineering, recommended approval with a variance for water and sewer requirements governed by local and state rules.

Member Jason Herndon moved to approve the Burkes Garden Methodist Church subdivision with the variance, and Member Charlie Hart seconded. The motion carried 5–0, with Members Eddie Pauley and Darrell Addison absent. The commission subsequently voted 5–0 to waive the $106 subdivision fee.

The approval cites the Sub-Division Ordinance (8-19-03 Sec. 4-2) requirement that permanent means of sewage disposal acceptable to the health official be provided and Sec. 4-4-5 regarding private water and sewer meeting applicable state and local requirements; the minutes record that the variance addresses those requirements. The county director of engineering made the recommendation to grant the variance and the commission acted on that recommendation at the meeting.

No formal recusal is recorded in the minutes for any member whose property is involved; the minutes record the roll of five members voting in favor. The commission recorded the motions and outcomes in its December 8 minutes.

Next procedural steps or filings required after this subdivision approval are not specified in the meeting minutes.