Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tift County approves rezoning at 3616 U.S. Highway 82 West for office and storage
Summary
The Tift County Board of Commissioners approved a rezoning request for a 0.66-acre parcel at 3616 U.S. Highway 82 West, changing the property from rural single-family residential (RR1) to general business to allow an office and storage facility; one commissioner recused.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Tift County Board of Commissioners approved a rezoning request for a 0.66-acre parcel at 3616 U.S. Highway 82 West on a motion passed during the board's public hearing session. The petition, filed as TC-ZA25-O1 by WCTB Investors (owner/agent Wade Crumley), seeks to change the parcel from RR1 (rural single-family residential) to general business to permit construction of an office and storage use.
County staff summarized the petition, noting the property is identified on county records as map number 0034C, parcel 038. The board opened a public hearing and solicited comments in favor and opposed; no members of the public spoke for or against the rezoning. A commissioner declared a conflict of interest and recused from consideration before the final vote. The board then voted to approve the rezoning request; the transcript records Commissioner Reagan voting in favor.
The requester and staff gave no additional conditions or site plan modifications during the hearing, and the board did not record a detailed roll-call vote in the public transcript. The motion as recorded in the meeting minutes was to "approve TC-ZA25-O1 as presented." The approval moves the parcel from an RR1 designation to general business under county zoning rules, allowing the petitioner to pursue the stated office and storage construction consistent with applicable permitting and building-review processes.
Because one commissioner recused, staff indicated the recusal was noted in the record before the board took action. County staff present at the hearing offered to respond to follow-up procedural questions after the meeting; no follow-up items or conditions were stated on the record during the hearing.

