CAIRO — Three public hearings were held at Tuesday’s Grady County Board of Commissioners meeting.

These were on the county’s comprehensive plan update, the closure of Patterson Road and a variance request for Sugar Mill Phase II subdivision.

One citizen asked how the comprehensive plan was being put together and the Southwest Georgia Regional Development Center’s role in the project.

The board responded that the RDC was simply taking the information provided by the cities of Cairo and Whigham and Grady County to put together the plan.

Information will be gathered from planning sessions and committee meetings. All three entities involved with the comprehensive plan are at work on forming and finding citizens willing to serve on the various committees.

Work on the plan is expected to continue for the next several months.

The Patterson Road closure was requested due to unwanted traffic on the land.

There were no objections during the public hearing and the board unanimously agreed to close the road.

Developer Al Conner addressed the board about his request for a variance from the Grady County Georgia Regulations for Specific Land Uses.

Conner said he was having trouble adhering to the regulations regarding lot front acreage for subdivisions.

“A lot that fronts a public street must be 150 feet wide,” said Rusty Moye, county administrator, after the meeting. “There’s no question our subdivision regulations call for 150 feet width at the public street.”

Some of the lots in Sugar Mill Phase II were less than 150 feet in width and Conner said he thought some of the regulations were unclear, specifically regarding those at the Grady County Health Department versus the county’s subdivision requirements.

“Most of the lots were 150 feet — the way they should be — so, if there had been a conflict or a misunderstanding, it looks to me like other lots would have been various sizes,” said Commissioner Bobby Burns on Wednesday. “Only 11 lots did not meet the requirement.”

Commissioner Benny Prince made the motion to deny the variance request. Vice Chairman Charles Norton seconded the motion.

The board unanimously voted to deny the request but agreed to take a look at the regulations regarding lot frontage.

“The planning board has said there are some conflicts in front feet requirements by the county versus what the health department requires,” said Burns. “We’ll take a look at those complaints regarding conflicts in regulations and the planning board will take a look at it and, if there are conflicts, we’ll resolve those.”

Recommended for you