Franklin County keeps 300-foot poultry-house setback for Royston tract

Franklin County commissioners unanimously denied Thanh Vo’s request to bring planned poultry houses 34 feet closer to the right-side boundary of a 34.81-acre tract at 690 Cromers Bridge Road in Royston. The May 4 vote, recorded in the Board of Commissioners meeting minutes as a motion to deny that passed 5-0, keeps the county’s 300-foot side setback rather than allowing the proposed 266-foot distance.

The dispute turns on how a poultry-house project may be arranged near a property line in Franklin County’s Agricultural Intensive district. Although the requested reduction was 34 feet, the decision means any project moving forward under this request must meet the full 300-foot right-side spacing rule. The county records do not say whether another layout would work, whether the applicant will revise the plan or whether the project will proceed.

The proposal entered the public review process on April 16, when the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda listed Vo’s request to reduce the poultry-house side setback from 300 feet to 266 feet. By the May 4 Board of Commissioners public hearing, county agenda material said the Planning Commission recommended denial by a 4-0 vote. Commissioners then acted on the request that day, and a May 21 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda repeated the Board’s 5-0 denial without reporting a new action.

Vo sought the exception for the Royston tract. The Planning Commission’s position, as described in the May 4 Board agendas, was a 4-0 recommendation to deny it; the separate Planning Commission vote record is not included. The Board of Commissioners’ own meeting minutes identify Commissioner Busby as seconding the denial motion and record all five commissioners voting for it. The materials do not provide the applicant’s rationale, commissioners’ discussion or public-comment positions.

The 266-foot setback was a proposal, not an approved amendment, under the county’s documented action. The completed act is the May 4 denial, leaving the ordinary 300-foot standard applicable to this request. There is an unresolved contradiction in the May 4 material: a summary attached to the meeting labels the variance “approved,” while the minutes record a 5-0 denial and the May 21 planning agenda repeats the denial. No construction, revised application, reconsideration or reversal is documented.

No additional hearing or follow-up decision has been identified for case V-2026-002. The next public indication of movement would be a future Board of Commissioners or Planning and Zoning Commission agenda, minutes or filing showing a reconsideration request, a new variance application or a revised project. It also remains undecided whether county officials will correct or explain the conflicting May 4 description; the minutes record the vote but not the time it occurred.