Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Water Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pike County commissioners deny special-use permit for bulk spring water in Meansville
Summary
The Pike County Board of Commissioners voted 4–1 on Nov. 12 to deny SUP 25506, a request to extract and truck bulk spring water from a 759.6-acre property off U.S. 19 north of Shepard Road in Meansville amid concerns about local water availability, adjacent property impacts and truck safety.
On Nov. 12, the Pike County Board of Commissioners voted 4–1 to deny special-use permit SUP 25506, which would have allowed bulk extraction and off-site transport of spring water from a roughly 759.6-acre property north of Shepard Road on U.S. Highway 19 in Meansville.
Planning staff told the board the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval conditioned on five requirements, including an annual business license with copies of Department of Agriculture inspections, paved access from U.S. 19 meeting county UDC standards, monthly monitoring reports, a hydrologic or geologic study reviewed by the Flint Riverkeepers and the Pike County Water and Sewage Authority before permits would be issued, and restriction of access so county roads are not used for commercial ingress and egress.
A commissioner who read a prepared statement said the request’s special-use status and conflicting information from the applicant and opponents raised concerns that the operation could be "detrimental to the use and development of adjacent properties," could "adversely affect availability of water service and water quality in this southern portion of Pike County," and posed "a potential safety hazard related to the proposed ingress and egress of the delivery trucks." The commissioner concluded, "Based on these concerns, I move to deny the special use permit 25-06." Another commissioner seconded the motion.
Planning staff noted the applicant and a technical professional were present to answer questions and that the applicant had forwarded proposed condition modifications to the board. Staff had also described the applicant’s proposals for water volumes on-site and handling of transported water but did not present the hydrologic study the board’s recommended conditions require prior to development permits.
The motion to deny carried by a 4–1 vote, with the chairman recorded as opposed. The board did not adopt any alternate conditions or continue the item; the denial is reflected in the meeting record.
Because the motion was a formal denial on the record, any appeal or reapplication would follow applicable county procedures and timelines under the Pike County development code and permitting process.
