Madison County planning panel reviews seven rezoning requests to split rural parcels

MADISON COUNTY — The Madison County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed seven rezoning applications Wednesday that would split larger rural parcels into smaller residential lots across several districts, including Colmer, Danielsville, Homer, Comer and Hall.

At the start of the meeting the commission approved the minutes of the Jan. 7 meeting; the motion was seconded by Mr. Jones and the chair declared the minutes approved. The meeting then moved into public hearings and staff presentations on individual rezoning requests.

Why it matters: the applications would change zoning on portions of agricultural parcels to allow new home sites and lot sales, which commissioners said could alter neighborhood patterning in small nodes around towns such as Comer and Homer. Commissioners and staff focused on whether proposed lot sizes and access meet county standards and whether the proposed changes fit the county’s character-area guidance.

The commission heard these requests (abridged): Kendra McKinney, applying for property owned by Bobby Lee Athalene, asked to rezone 10.35 acres on Highway 72 in Colmer from A-2 to R to split into two roughly 5‑acre home sites. Lee Tucker, on behalf of Gregory Meadows, asked to rezone a 5‑acre portion of a 50‑acre parcel at 2620 Howard Danielsville Road so the owner can retain his existing home and the buyer will reside on the 45‑acre remainder.

Ronald St. Clair requested rezoning 3.41 acres from A-2 to R-1 on Highway 106 South (Map 29, Parcel 44) to create two home-site tracts; Jody Russell asked to rezone 6.52 acres from A-2 to R-1 to split into three parcels fronting different local roads in Homer. Gary Harmon, representing Betty Hanley, proposed cutting 4.377 acres from an 86.14‑acre parcel on Nowhere Road to retain the house parcel while the larger remainder remains A-1 for future inheritance division.

Two related applications in Comer were presented together: Gary and Stephanie Martin sought to rezone a 0.0566‑acre sliver of their 12.26 acres to add road frontage to an adjoining parcel (9346B). Separately, Gary Harmon, on behalf of Jonathan House, proposed a combination of small rezones and absorptions on a 20.12‑acre tract at 8217 Highway 172 so that one parcel would gain adequate road frontage, another 4‑acre tract could be sold as R, and a 10.2‑acre portion would be rezoned A-2; portions would be absorbed into adjoining A-1 property (map references discussed at the meeting).

Commission discussion centered on three recurring points: road frontage and driveway access, conformity with the county’s character-area map, and lot geometry rules for multiple small lots. A staff member read an applicable provision to the group: “With 3 or more lots of 10 acres or less in size… the length of any such divided lot shall be no greater than 4 times the width” (Article 5.3.2), and warned that some site plans could change if the standard applies.

Commissioners and staff also noted topography and existing driveway patterns as constraints. On the Homer site, for example, members asked whether steep slopes or a hill would limit the practical ability to build three house lots. On the Comer parcels, staff explained a small sliver of land would be transferred to provide the required 50 feet of road frontage for a subdividable lot; several participants described that as neighbors “working things out among them.”

No final rezoning votes or formal approvals on the individual rezoning applications appear in the transcript. The chair stated the group would not re-review previously discussed items 8–13 and said the meeting would stop after item 7. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. and later adjourned by voice vote.

Quotes from the meeting included staff’s explanation of a staff absence: “She tested positive for the flu and the pneumonia, so she’s struggling to kinda shake it,” and the code reading about lot proportions cited above.

What’s next: For any application that proceeds, applicants will need correct site plans and eventual recorded surveys that meet the county’s lot‑shape and road‑frontage requirements; staff flagged that a survey could later reject a subdivision if it violates Article 5.3.2. The transcript does not record final commission decisions on the seven rezoning cases.

Adjournment: the chair closed the meeting later in the evening; no further items were discussed in the transcript.