Archived story
As originally published
Franklin County’s most recent public reference to Courtney Long’s zoning request says the Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 to approve a reduced front setback at 699 Highway 326 in Carnesville. But that statement appears in the March 19 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda, not in a final Board action record. The cited March 2 Board minutes show that a hearing occurred, yet do not state whether commissioners approved, denied or further postponed variance V-2025-012.
The request would reduce the residential building front setback from 100 feet to 36.5 feet on an approximately 12.3-acre Agricultural Intensive tract in District 3, identified as Map/Parcel 030/034. The parcel is owned by Jeremy and Courtney Long. The decision would determine how close a residence could be built to Highway 326, making the precise outcome and any attached requirements consequential for the property and for county land-use enforcement.
The matter first appeared on the Board’s Jan. 5 agendas, when Long sought an extension to the Jan. 22 Planning Commission meeting. By Feb. 2, Board agendas said the Planning Commission had made no recommendation after a 2-2 vote. Board minutes then document that commissioners amended their agenda to postpone the variance until March 2. At the March hearing, Chair Long recused herself from discussion and voting, and the county attorney conducted the quasi-judicial proceeding because the vice chair was absent.
The applicants’ position, as recorded on the Jan. 5 Board agendas, was a request for the 36.5-foot setback. Those agendas do not state why they sought the reduction or describe a specific residence. The Planning Commission did not provide a recommendation because its vote was split 2-2, according to the Feb. 2 Board agendas and minutes. The county attorney’s role on March 2 was procedural: the Board minutes say the attorney outlined the Board’s options during the hearing.
The March 19 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda is the strongest indication that the variance advanced, because it says the Board approved it 2-1. Still, that agenda’s copied status history does not itself establish the Board vote. The cited March 2 Board minutes confirm the hearing and recusal, but do not record a final decision, motion, participating vote or conditions. The record therefore does not establish whether construction may proceed or what restrictions, if any, would govern an approval.
The concrete next public step is release or identification of Board of Commissioners minutes or another final county action record for V-2025-012. Such a record could confirm or contradict the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda’s report of a 2-1 approval, identify the motion and participating vote, and disclose any conditions. Until then, the cited materials leave unresolved the final Board disposition, the applicants’ reason for seeking the reduced setback, the details of any proposed residence and whether any approval carried requirements.