Gordon County denies two Highway 41 rezoning requests after heated public hearing

The Gordon County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 Wednesday to deny two rezoning applications that would have changed parcels on Highway 41 North in Resaca from Agricultural A-1 to Light Industrial I-1.

The decision came after more than an hour of public testimony from residents, battlefield preservation groups and the applicants, who offered to donate roughly 30 acres of a 59-acre property to a local preservation group as part of the development proposal.

The denied applications, filed as RZ2025-02 (parcel 039-031) and RZ2025-03 (parcel 039-028), were the subject of a reopened public hearing that the commission approved at the start of the session. Planning staff had recommended denial; the county planning commission earlier recorded a 2-2 vote on the matters.

Applicant attorney David Branch said his team was "gonna put our money where our mouth is" and described a proposal that would donate "more than half" of the Springbank-owned tract to the Friends of Resaca Battlefield Incorporated. Consultant Terry Runlow told commissioners the donation would be about 30 acres of the owner's 59-acre holding and that the donation's market value, based on the contract price cited by the applicants, would be about $250,000. Branch also told commissioners the full development could create "3 to 400 new jobs" and estimated total project costs at roughly $40,000,000.

Residents speaking against rezoning urged the commissioners to preserve the area's historic character and raised public-safety and health concerns tied to increased truck traffic. Shauna Dooley, who said she and other neighbors had lived in the area for generations, warned that a logistics center would "negatively affect the health and welfare of the adjacent neighbors and the residents of Resaca," citing studies and traffic estimates she provided to the record.

Opponents also questioned the boundaries of the Resaca Historic Overlay District and asked the county to enter a map and other documents into the permanent record. The board voted to add seven submitted items, including a battlefield map presented by the American Battlefield Trust and a satellite-based air-quality study cited by speakers.

After public comment and a brief applicant rebuttal, Commissioner Stewart moved to deny both rezoning applications; the motion passed on a roll call vote: Stewart — yes; Abernathy — no; Sutherland — yes; Cunningham — no; Owens — yes.

Votes at a glance

- RZ2025-02 (parcel 039-031) — Request to rezone A-1 to I-1: Denied (roll call 3–2). Referenced planning staff recommendation: denial; planning commission: 2–2. - RZ2025-03 (parcel 039-028) — Request to rezone A-1 to I-1 (Resaca Overlay District): Denied (roll call 3–2). Referenced planning staff recommendation: denial; planning commission: 2–2.

What commissioners and speakers said

Applicant attorney David Branch said the development team seeks "common ground" and offered a large partial land donation intended to preserve battlefield features. Terry Runlow said the donation would be "30 acres more or less" and described possible uses including battlefield overlooks, overflow parking for reenactments or an RV park if the county and preservation partners pursued improvements.

Opponents, including multiple longtime residents and battlefield preservation advocates, urged the board to protect the Resaca Historic Overlay District and to require archaeological study before any development. Shauna Dooley cited traffic and public-health research and asked the board to deny the applications to protect children, property values and community wellbeing.

Context and next steps

Planning staff and the applicants agreed the record now includes a set of documents and maps submitted during the hearing. Commissioners also recorded that the county's 2009 Resaca overlay records and parcel lists were consulted; some speakers said they still wanted a clearer historic-overlay map in the official file. The applicants said they would be willing to work with the county on reasonable contingencies but did not ask for a follow-up referral at the meeting.

Other board business during the session included routine approvals and consent items (see votes at a glance below). The rezoning denials are final actions of the commission from this meeting; any future application would require a new filing or a sufficiently modified proposal and would again be subject to staff review and public hearing.