Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Special Events topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny conditional use permit for proposed special‑events facility on Highway 36 after neighbors raise noise and access concerns
Summary
The board voted to deny CUP24-000014 for a special‑events and agritourism facility proposed at 13793 Highway 36, citing resident concerns about proximity, noise, security, alcohol, and changes to an agricultural residential area.
The Newton County Board of Commissioners denied a conditional use permit (CUP24-000014) on April 1 for a proposed special-events facility and agritourism operations at 13793 Highway 36.
Planning staff summarized the application: a 36.05-acre parcel with existing farmhouse and barns, proposed to host private gatherings, farm‑to‑table and agritourism activities, and educational programs. Staff explained the applicable standards for special events (section 510-595) and recommended conditions including occupancy limits set by the fire marshal, required inspections, limits on outdoor events (outside events to end at 11 p.m., with cleanup time excluded), security personnel on site, parking shown on a concept plan, and a 50-foot setback for outside receptions from property boundaries.
Applicant Ronnie Anatoski Rochelle described a plan that she said preserves the agricultural character and keeps event locations well back from neighbors, noting distances “well over” the 700-foot reference cited in the staff packet and saying the couple intended to remain good neighbors. Neighbors — including Beverly Douglas and Molly Burat — spoke in opposition at the public hearing, saying they had not been notified, that there are gaps in fencing and no physical barriers between yards, and raising repeated concerns about security, alcohol, potential unruly guests, frequency of events, noise (including cleanup noise after an event ends), and children’s safety.
Commissioner Edwards said he was concerned about placing a commercial use in an agricultural-residential zoning area and referenced the residents’ points about frequency and owner presence; he moved to deny the conditional use permit. The motion to deny was seconded and carried; a commissioner recused himself from voting due to a prior real-estate agent role. The board’s denial ends this conditional-use request; staff may accept revised applications or permit-stage submittals if the applicant seeks to alter the proposal and resubmit.
Staff had recommended a set of conditions if the CUP were approved, including fire‑marshal inspections, environmental health approval and limits on outdoor events and buffers. Those conditions are no longer applicable because the board voted to deny the permit.
Neighbors asked the county about enforcement mechanisms and requested clearer notice in future processes.
