Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held for mobile home at 410 Firetower Road; neighbor voices concern about visual impact
Summary
Brandi and Phillip Spillers presented a conditional-use request to place a mobile home on 15 acres at 410 Firetower Road; Planning and Zoning recommended approval but a nearby neighbor opposed mobile homes and the minutes do not record a final vote at the public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brandi and Phillip (Phillip Lee) Spillers requested a conditional-use permit to place a mobile home on a 15‑acre property at 410 Firetower Road and establish it as their primary residence, the Commission record shows. Planning and Zoning submitted a letter recommending approval and Chairman Charles Coffey opened the May 27 public hearing to accept comment.
Mr. Spiller told the Commission he and his wife currently live in Columbus, Georgia, and want to return to the community. He said building a house is not affordable for them and that they plan to set the mobile home on a concrete slab. "They would like to place a mobile home on 15 acres and establish a primary residence... they cannot afford to build a house, it is cheaper to place a mobile home, but they want to put it on a concrete slab," the record states.
A nearby property owner, Mark Henson of 455 Firetower Road, spoke against placing mobile homes in the area. Henson said he understands the Spillers' circumstances but expressed concern that mobile homes tend to depreciate and that vacant or abandoned mobile units can make the county "look ugly." He said he has nothing personal against the Spillers but is generally opposed to mobile homes in the locality.
The minutes also note an adjacent property owner in CUVA contacted the chairman by text expressing concerns, but the record does not include a formal statement in the hearing. Planning and Zoning’s checklist documentation and recommendation were entered into the packet, and the Commission closed the public hearing without recording a final vote on the conditional-use permit in this hearing record.
What’s next: Because the minutes do not record a final decision at the May 27 hearing, the application will move forward according to the Commission’s public-notice and agenda procedures; staff indicated CUP-related items would be placed on a forthcoming regular meeting agenda for decision.
