In a recent government meeting, a contentious variance request was discussed regarding the elimination of sidewalk requirements for a proposed development located within a two-mile radius of a planned school site. Developer Thomas Henry argued that the requirement for sidewalks was unnecessary, citing the distance to the school and the lack of immediate plans for its construction. He expressed frustration over not being informed about a property change that affected his development, which he claimed led to the sidewalk requirement.

Henry emphasized that the absence of sidewalks would not negatively impact the community, stating that it would not affect property values or safety for residents. He argued that parents would not allow their children to walk to school, given the distance and the dangerous conditions of the surrounding roads, including a nearby clay pit.

However, several community members voiced strong opposition to the variance. Sherry Chapman, a local resident, highlighted the importance of sidewalks for safety, especially as the area is expected to grow and more children will be walking to school. Other residents echoed her sentiments, emphasizing that sidewalks are a critical part of the land development code designed to ensure safety in increasingly populated neighborhoods.

Tanya Zedek, another resident, requested that the appeal be tabled to allow more community members to voice their opinions, as many were unable to attend the meeting due to personal circumstances. She raised concerns about drainage issues and the need for sidewalks to ensure safe passage for pedestrians.

The discussion revealed a divide among board members. Some expressed support for Henry's request, citing the lack of immediate plans for the school and the impracticality of requiring sidewalks for a development that is not adjacent to the school site. Others, however, maintained that safety should be the priority, advocating for adherence to existing codes that mandate sidewalks in new developments.

Ultimately, the board faced a challenging decision, balancing the developer's concerns with community safety and adherence to land development regulations. The outcome of the vote remains to be seen, but the discussions highlighted the complexities of urban planning and community safety in rapidly developing areas.