Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County commissioners approve a slate of residential rezoning requests
Summary
At a Sept. 8 work session, the Madison County Board of Commissioners approved ten rezoning requests to allow lot splits and accessory dwellings across several districts; all motions carried after planning board recommended approval.
Madison County commissioners on Sept. 8 approved a series of rezoning requests that would allow property owners to split tracts or add accessory dwelling units in several districts across the county.
The approvals followed unanimous 5-0 recommendations from the county Planning and Zoning (P&Z) board and included motions, seconds and final votes recorded by the board. Each request was presented, a public hearing noted (with no members of the public speaking in favor or opposition for most items), and the board voted in favor.
Highlights of the approved requests included: a rezoning for five acres at 1212 Palmetown Road in Bowen to permit an accessory dwelling (applicant Sondra Chastine); an 11.94-acre split on Midwood Road in Collins (Linda McClellan and Steve McHarris) to create two home sites; a 5.62-acre rezoning to allow an accessory dwelling at 257 Cliff Griffith Road in Danielsville (John Simms III, applicant for John Simms II); and multiple other A1/A2-to-AR or A2-to-AR conversions enabling 4–15 acre splits for homesites across Districts 1–5. In each case the board moved, seconded and recorded the motion as carried.
Why it matters: The approved rezones enable owners to divide larger tracts for family members or home sites and add accessory dwelling units where permitted; several were justified as estate splits or caretaker/caretaker-dwelling requests. Commissioners discussed procedural questions (for example, setbacks and access), confirmed public hearing status, and recorded their votes on each item.
Votes at a glance (items recorded in the meeting packet and discussed on Sept. 8): - Sondra Chastine (for David Fowler) — 5.00-acre rezoning, 1212 Palmetown Road (Map 90, Parcels 006B, District 4). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Linda McClellan & Steve McHarris — 11.94-acre rezoning for split (Map 46, Parcel 114, District 5). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - John Simms III (for John Simms II) — 5.62-acre rezoning for accessory dwelling (257 Cliff Griffith Road, Map 56, Parcel 132, District 2). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Terry Haynes (Florida Haynes Estate) — 4.0-acre portion of 59.06 acres rezoned to allow estate split (7431 Nowhere Road in Hull, Map 17, Parcel 9, District 1). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - David & Joseph Spuell — rezoning to allow caretaker dwelling (225 Van Manly Road, Map 49, Parcel 54, District 4). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Frederick & Carol Leonard and Paula Dornal — 6.757-acre portion rezoned to allow a home site (400 Highway 174, Map 38, Parcel 9, District 2). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Lance Wade (applicant for Martha Wood) — 14-acre portion rezoned to split and sell with existing home (3956 Highway 98 East, Map 58, Parcel 53, District 2). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Matt Hardway — 15.94-acre rezoning to split into two roughly equal tracts (8411 Wildcat Bridge Road, Map 78, Parcel 028-15, District 4). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Mikeson Leg, 404040404, LLC — 17-acre portion rezoned of a 113.44-acre tract to enable sale of a retained home and remaining poultry houses to remain on a separate parcel (4450 Road, Comer, Map 104, Parcel 25-01, District 4). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved. - Eric Hammond — 12.4-acre rezoning to allow a 4-acre split and retain 8.4 acres for a homesite (2480 Palmetown Road, Map 91, Parcel 39, District 4). P&Z: 5-0 recommend; Board: motion approved.
The board recorded each motion, there were seconds recorded by other commissioners, and for each item the chair announced that the motion carried.
Background: Planning staff presented each application and confirmed the P&Z board recommendation (most recorded as 5-0). Several applicants attended the meeting and said they were comfortable with the presentations. Commissioners occasionally asked clarifying questions about setbacks and access during the motions. No additional conditions or amendments were recorded on these motions during the meeting.
Ending: The approvals clear the way for the immediate property splits or accessory dwellings described; any future projects that would require conditional uses or changes to other ordinance sections would be considered separately by planning staff and the P&Z board.
