Carnesville setback variance is listed as approved, but final Franklin County vote remains undocumented

Franklin County’s most recent public reference to Courtney Long’s request to build closer to Highway 326 in Carnesville says the Board of Commissioners approved it 2-1. That statement appears in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s March 19 agenda, not in a Board action record. The Board’s March 2 hearing minutes confirm that commissioners considered the request at 699 Highway 326, but they do not state whether the variance was approved, denied or postponed again.

The application seeks to cut the required front setback for a residential building 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. Jeremy and Courtney Long own the parcel. A final decision would determine how near a residence could be placed to the road and whether county requirements or conditions would apply; neither the reported approval nor the hearing minutes establishes those details.

The matter reached county officials in early January, when Board agendas listed Long’s request and an extension to a Jan. 22 Planning Commission meeting. By Feb. 2, the Planning Commission had split 2-2 and made no recommendation, and the Board hearing record says the request was postponed to March 2. That postponement led to the March hearing, where the applicants’ request was taken up under the Board’s quasi-judicial procedures.

The applicants are Jeremy and Courtney Long, whose property is the subject of the setback request. Chair Long recused herself from the March 2 hearing because she was an applicant. With the vice chair absent, County Attorney Ken Jarrard conducted the proceeding and explained the Board’s procedures and options, according to the minutes. The Planning Commission’s earlier 2-2 vote left it without a recommendation, rather than endorsing or rejecting the request.

The March 19 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda is the strongest public indication that the Board approved the variance by a 2-1 vote. But an agenda’s copied status is not itself the Board’s final action record. The March 2 Board hearing minutes document that a hearing occurred and that Chair Long recused herself; they do not record a motion, participating vote, final disposition or conditions. As a result, the record does not establish whether construction may proceed or what restrictions, if any, would govern it.

The next concrete public step is the release or identification of Board of Commissioners minutes or another final county action record for variance V-2025-012. That document could verify or contradict the Planning Commission agenda’s reported 2-1 approval, identify the motion and participating commissioners, and disclose any conditions. Until then, the final Board disposition remains unresolved in the cited county records, along with the applicants’ reason for the reduced setback and the details of any proposed residence.