Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Conservation To Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mixed vote but recommendation carries: commission forwards rezoning of 5.532 acres from C-1 to A-1; Board approves
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended by a 3–2 vote that the Board of Supervisors approve rezoning of a 5.532-acre portion of a 77.112-acre parcel (Madison County tax map 44-3) from C-1 Conservation to A-1 Agricultural; the Board later approved the rezoning.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Conservation To Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission recommended, by a 3–2 vote, that the Board of Supervisors approve a rezoning request to change a 5.532-acre portion of a 77.112-acre parcel (Madison County tax map 44-3) from C-1 Conservation to A-1 Agricultural. The Board later voted to approve the rezoning as recommended.
Planning staff reviewed the request and said the change would allow the creation of a lot that follows “natural boundaries,” including Kinderhook Road and an existing easement, and argued the rezoning could keep development away from floodplain areas on the larger parcel. Staff also observed that, under current zoning, a house could still be built by right but selling off a 10-acre parcel would likely lead to a different configuration of development.
Several commissioners cautioned about setting a precedent for converting conservation zoned parcels, noting past C-1 designations reflected topography and that upzoning should be used carefully. One commissioner said the land was zoned C-1 because of topography and urged caution before changing it.
The Planning Commission vote was recorded as 3 in favor and 2 opposed (opposition attributed to two commissioners, recorded as Pete and James). At the Board meeting several supervisors debated the precedent question in greater detail; some members said similar split-zone changes have been approved previously and that this parcel’s configuration made the rezoning reasonable. A motion to recommend the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors carried in the commission; the Board subsequently approved the rezoning following motion, second and voice vote.
The applicant, recorded on the file as Jonathan Nichols, said he did not intend to “maximize” development and described interest in creating a single house site for a family member; he emphasized respect for county rural character.

