Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County approves multiple small-acreage rezonings after unanimous planning commission recommendations
Summary
The Madison County Board of Commissioners approved a series of residential and agricultural rezoning requests June 2 after planning and zoning recommended each by 5–0 and no public opposition was recorded.
The Madison County Board of Commissioners approved several property rezoning requests June 2, all of which had been recommended by the county Planning and Zoning Commission by 5–0 votes and drew no speakers in opposition during public hearings.
The approved requests included: a 26.51-acre split at 1364 Adahall Rogers Road in Commerce (A1 to A2, split into ~12.751 and ~13.763 acres); a small split from a 20-acre parcel on Adams Duncan Road to create a home site (A2 to R1 for about 4 acres, with the remaining 16 acres staying A2); a 6.232-acre split from a 31.92-acre parcel on Rutherford Willis Road (A1 to AR); a roughly 10.9-acre split from a 52.22-acre parcel at 1745 Hannah Creek Church Road (A1 to A2, leaving 41.38 acres A1); a dual rezoning on Highway 29 in Sullivan Hall to create a ~2.963-acre R1 lot and convert the remainder to AR; and a 5.6-acre split from a 40.97-acre parcel on Freddahl Road (A1 to AR) to create a family home site. Commissioners moved and seconded approval motions for each item and recorded the motions as carried.
Applicants and supporters told the board most requests were family transfers or splits to retain family homesteads and to align parcels with zoning rules. In one case, applicant Pierce Gordon was granted a $250 fee refund for administrative issues connected to his application. Attorney and local resident Sherry Hines spoke for one applicant, saying the owner “has no intentions of developing the property” and plans conservation steps in the future. Planning staff noted a preexisting private access easement on one parcel and said it predated the county driveway ordinance, so the driveway rules did not apply to that easement.
Board discussion was procedural; commissioners asked whether applicants wished to add anything, confirmed no public opposition, and recorded votes. No ordinance changes or conditions beyond those noted in staff reports were adopted as part of these approvals.
The zoning portion of the meeting concluded with the board chair noting the commission’s reports were complete and moving the meeting on to other county business.
