Bradley County committee declines to approve new sewer crossing of road department property; motion fails for lack of a second

A joint meeting of Bradley Countyroad and land-and-building committee members on an easement request ended without a formal vote after the committee failed to advance a recommendation for or against a property ownerproposal to run sewer across county road department property.

The committee met to consider a request tied to Resolution 2025-48, which authorized an easement across county property at 752 Pleasant Grove Road SW and Landfill Road SW. County Attorney counsel clarified that the earlier resolution covered a different portion of the county parcel (the landfill portion) and did not include running sewer across the road department site; adding that crossing would require an amendment or a separate action.

Tom Collins, the county road superintendent, told the committee the proposed alignment would cut through the area where the department stores drainage tile and equipment, interfering with daily work and a planned April auction. "Itis gonna really cramp our ability to do business," he said, arguing relocation of stored materials and equipment would significantly disrupt operations.

Bill Sanders, the property owner, said his engineering and surveying are complete and that his contract to develop the site is contingent on sewer availability. Sanders described plans for a large warehouse-and-office development and said the additional crossing would require roughly "a little over 100" feet of easement to reach his property from the existing recorded segment. "We will not block your driveway, and we will help you or move it for you, the pipe," Sanders told the committee when asked about construction impacts and mitigation.

Commissioners asked whether the applicant could be required to reimburse the county for costs to move tiles, fencing, or pay for staff time if the route disturbed county property; the County Attorney said there is no legal prohibition on collecting compensation for such impacts.

Several commissioners urged exploring alternatives before changing county property use. Members recounted earlier verbal assurances from KOA (a neighboring property owner) that crossing their land would be permitted; speakers representing the applicant said KOA later increased its compensation demand to an amount Sanders framed as prohibitive. Anthony Boone, speaking for Sanders, said the applicant had addressed Mr. Collins's earlier concerns in site meetings and contingency plans.

Commissioner Thompson moved to "uphold the road department's wishes," a recommendation effectively to deny any new crossing of the road department parcel. The motion received no second and therefore failed. The County Attorney noted that taking no action at the committee level would leave the previously recorded resolution unchanged and that a formal recommendation to deny would require action by the full commission.

With no motion to approve and no recommendation forwarded, the committees did not place an amended easement on their agenda and adjourned. That leaves Sandersrequest unresolved; he and his representatives said they will continue trying to secure an alternative route or negotiate with neighboring property owners.

The committeemeeting record showed no formal vote on the additional easement during the session; any future action would require either a committee motion that succeeds or a full commission agenda placement.