Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of rezoning and conditional use for vegetative debris processing site on Highway 119
Summary
Bullock County planning commissioners recommended denial of a request to rezone about 23.78 acres on Highway 119 to heavy industrial and to allow a conditional-use heavy manufacturing facility to process vegetative debris; commissioners cited traffic, fire-safety and watershed concerns. The matter will go to the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 2.
Bullock County planning commissioners on Aug. — recommended denial of an application by Jason Dunn to rezone 23.78 acres at 276 Highway 119 North from AG-5 (agriculture) to heavy industrial and separately recommended denial of a conditional-use permit to operate a vegetative-debris processing facility on the same site. The planning commission vote was 2-1 to recommend denial on both items; the requests will be considered by the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 2 at 5:30 p.m. in this room at 115 North Main Street.
Why it mattered: The applicant said the site would be used to temporarily store tree and vegetative debris until a horizontal grinder is brought to the property to process material, then remove the resulting mulch. Neighbors and county staff expressed concern about increased truck traffic, noise, odors, runoff into the Black Creek watershed and limited local fire protection. The fire department told the commission the area lacks pressurized water and is a “class 10” zone, outside five miles from staffed fire stations, raising questions about firefighting capacity for large combustible stockpiles.
The proposal and the applicant’s explanation: Jason Dunn and his agent, Cody Rogers of EMC Engineering, told the commission there is no planned permanent building and no everyday grinding at the site. Rogers said the property would operate as a vegetative storage and processing yard and that horizontal grinding equipment would be brought in periodically. Dunn said truck volume would “depend on the volume of debris” and estimated the site could see “maybe 10” tractor‑trailer deliveries on some days and numerous pickup‑truck loads when members of the public or tree contractors bring material.
Neighbor and staff concerns: Pierce Roberts, a fourth‑generation farmer who lives about two miles from the site, said the area is “not ready for heavy industrial,” citing existing traffic congestion where Highway 119 and Highway 80 meet, nearby houses within 1,000 feet of the parcel, and the proximity of Black Creek tributaries. The county fire representative said, “At the moment we don't have pressurised water down there. It is in a class 10 area so it's outside of 5 miles from the nearest stations,” and suggested that the minimum water supply proposed in staff conditions (1,000 gallons per minute) would probably be insufficient without other protective measures. Commissioners and staff also discussed the need for a DOT encroachment permit for the driveway and raised questions about EPA rules governing the transfer of debris from other properties.
Commission action and next steps: The planning commission voted to recommend denial of both the rezoning and the conditional‑use permit by a 2‑1 margin; one planning commissioner—identified in the record as Mr. Brandon—voted in opposition to the denials. The planning commission's recommendation (denial) will be forwarded to the Bullock County Board of Commissioners, which will hold a public hearing on Sept. 2 at 5:30 p.m. The staff report included proposed conditions that staff said would apply only if the county decided to approve the applications; the commission chose to recommend denial rather than adopt conditions.
What was not resolved: The transcript and staff report refer to a set of conditions recommended “if approved” (including limiting the site to vegetative processing, perimeter buffers, a berm and water/fire protection measures), but the planning commission did not adopt specific conditions because it recommended denial. The applicant and staff discussed possible alternatives — including pursuing a conditional use without rezoning — but the commission did not approve any direction to staff beyond forwarding the denial recommendation to the commissioners.
Meeting context: The discussion drew sustained public comment and detailed questioning by commissioners and staff; the fire department and neighbors emphasized emergency‑response and watershed risks. The item will next be considered by the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 2.
