Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects rezoning request for 39 Goose Pond Road after neighbors object
Summary
After sustained public comment and questions about allowed uses, the Coffee County Commission voted 7-5 to deny a resolution that would have reclassified 39 Goose Pond Road from A-1 (Agriculture/Forestry) to C-1 (Rural Center). Residents said the change would set a precedent and could allow uses that do not fit the farming neighborhood.
The Coffee County Commission voted 7-5 to reject Resolution 2025-9, a request to rezone 39 Goose Pond Road from A-1 (agriculture/forestry) to C-1 (Rural Center). The item drew extended public comment from neighbors who said the rezoning would harm the area’s agricultural character and safety.
Supporters of keeping the property in A-1 told commissioners that the parcel sits in a tight-knit farming community and that commercial reclassification could allow uses they did not want. “I just don't understand why this parcel needs to be zoned commercial,” said Rick Parsley, who gave his address as 2183 Parker Road. “If he was to change his mind 3, 4 years down the road ... anything could come in there.”
Emma Holland, representing Coffee County FFA, said the change threatened future generations of farmers. “My generation of future farmers deserve the same opportunity to be able to have land and farm it without the worry of things like this happening,” Holland said, noting a petition from 152 residents opposing the rezoning.
Donna West Fletcher, who said she lives two doors down from 39 Goose Pond Road and represented neighbors in the Goose Pond community, told commissioners the parcel’s current size (about 3.3 acres) would allow a buyer to replace the existing house with multiple dwellings or other commercial uses if zoning changed. “Commercial rezoning should benefit the community. This proposed rezoning is not beneficial,” she said.
Anastasia Gonzales, a planning commission member present at the meeting, explained that the county’s zoning code treats C-1 as a Rural Center district intended to provide limited goods and services in rural corridors. The county attorney also noted differences between C-1 and a true commercial (C-2) district and read permitted uses in C-1, including “warehouse or storage facilities” and other uses that are not allowed in A-1.
The applicant, identified in the meeting as Mr. King, described a small office and storage use for his siding-and-roofing business. “We do siding and roofing ... the reason I wanted to do a barndominium style was so that we could park our work trucks and maybe some extra shutters,” King said, adding the site would not be retail.
Commissioners debated whether the proposed use could be carried out under current A-1 rules and whether the change was appropriate for the Highway 53 corridor. Commissioner Benton Brown, whose district includes the site, said commissioners represent their districts and that his constituents’ views matter. After closing discussion, the motion to approve Resolution 2025-9 failed, 7-5.
The denial leaves the parcel in its existing A-1 designation. Commissioners and staff indicated property owners or applicants may pursue other avenues such as conditional uses or appeals under existing zoning rules, but no new action on this parcel was approved at the meeting.
