Madison County approves conditional rezoning of 0.94-acre remnant near Livingston; deed restrictions attached to address church concerns

Madison County supervisors voted Dec. 16 to correct the zoning of a 0.94-acre remnant adjacent to an existing commercial parcel on Highway 22, rezoning the small parcel from A-1 (agriculture) to C-2 (general commercial) with conditions recorded as deed restrictions.

The change stemmed from a petition by the property's owner seeking to align the parcel with the larger, 3.53-acre parent tract that is commercially zoned. Steve Smith, attorney for the petitioner, told the board the 1964 zoning map and the county's land-use plan indicate the lot was intended to be commercial and that the A-1 label resulted from a clerical error. "At no time may the minimum lot size be reduced to below 1 acre or require any additional dimensional variances," Smith quoted from the county ordinance to underline why the 0.94-acre parcel was effectively unusable under A-1 zoning as written.

Why it matters: The remnant parcel abuts Damascus Church and a nearby children's activity center. Church leaders and nearby residents raised traffic, safety and land-use character concerns during public comment, asking the board to require protections in writing. The board approved the rezoning only after the petitioner agreed to record covenants limiting certain uses on the parcel and after board members emphasized that any future site plan would be subject to separate review.

The board's action followed a lengthy public hearing that included presentations from the petitioner's attorney, comments by the property owner, and remarks from several neighbors and church representatives. Mark Morgan, speaking for Damascus Church, said the parcel's conversion to commercial use could place commercial activity immediately adjacent to the church's parking lot and children's activity center. "We would rather not see a fast food restaurant going next door," Morgan said, and asked the board to require restrictions addressing traffic, type of tenants and buffering.

Attorney Smith argued the change was corrective rather than a new entitlement. He told supervisors the county's 1964 zoning map, accompanying legend and the 2019 zoning ordinance support treating the parcel as C-2 and that under A-1 the 0.94-acre lot could not legally be used even for basic agricultural uses because of the minimum-lot-size rules documented in the county ordinance.

The property owner said he does not intend to place certain uses on the site and offered to record restrictive covenants. The owner agreed to deed restrictions excluding a list of uses that were specifically discussed at the hearing, and said he would file the restrictions in the land records: "I'll file it in the land records," he said.

As described on the record, the restrictions the owner agreed to bar, at minimum, check-cashing/payday-lender businesses, car-title/cash-for-title operations, pawn shops, tattoo/body-piercing parlors, vaporizing/smoke-lounge businesses, fortune-telling/palm-reading operations, sports betting/gambling establishments and similar businesses. Board members and the owner also discussed prohibiting dollar-store chains and fast-food restaurants; the owner said he would not accept a dollar-store contract and was open to deed language clarifying that (the board asked staff to produce a definitive list for inclusion in the recorded covenants). The owner also said he would consider a planting/screening buffer but noted that detailed setbacks and screening are decided during the site-plan review.

Board members framed the vote as a correction of an apparent historic error while also seeking to protect surrounding property owners. Planning staff told the board the matter had been before the Planning and Zoning Commission previously and that research by the county's planning staff supported the petitioner's argument that the parcel was commercially intended since the 1964 ordinance and map.

The rezoning was approved by the supervisors with conditions to be recorded as covenants; the approval does not substitute for the separate site-plan and permitting process. Supervisors noted that when a site plan is filed, neighbors (including the church) will have the opportunity to review and comment on drainage, screening, setbacks and traffic-mitigation measures as part of that process.

The board's action acknowledges both the historical mapping question and neighbors' concerns, directing staff to include the agreed deed restrictions in the recorded decision and to enforce that site-plan review will follow the county's normal procedures.