The Madison County Board of Commissioners handled a lengthy zoning docket at its Dec. 1 agenda-setting work session, approving several rezoning requests recommended by the county Planning & Zoning Commission, denying one request after public opposition and tabling a group of items for a Jan. 5 vote.

What the board approved

- A rezoning request by Willie Joanne Stevenson to allow a 4-acre portion of a 22.66-acre tract at 0 Johnson Bridge Road (Map 67 Partial 49, District 2) to be split off as a home site; Planning & Zoning recommended approval (4–0) and the board approved the motion.
- A small rezoning by Ray Ballen and Mary Ann Hendis (0 Johnny McElroy Road, Map 56 Parcel 07301, District 2) to reclassify 0.18 acre so it could be combined with adjacent A2 land for tax purposes; the board approved following a 4–0 P&Z recommendation.
- A rezoning for Rose Patterson (2825 Spratling Mill Road, Map 32 Parcel 77, District 3) to create a 4-acre home site; the board approved after a 4–0 P&Z recommendation.
- James and Ruby Dunlop’s request to rezone 15.15 acres at 475 Rock Quarry Drive (Map 52 Partial 119G, District 4) to allow a second dwelling was approved following a 4–0 P&Z recommendation.
- Stanley and June James were allowed to rezone 2.06 acres (212 James Adam Road, Map 61 Parcel 27, District 4) from AR to B2 to combine property with an existing business; P&Z recommended approval (4–0) and the board approved with a site-plan conformity condition.
- A request by Keith, Deborah and Bridal Reynolds to rezone 6.1 acres at 457 Rocky Branch Hollow Road (Map 6 Parcel 58, District 1) to allow an accessory dwelling was approved after a 4–0 P&Z recommendation.

Denial after public opposition

A rezoning request by Tommy Hunter and James Pickle to convert 12.01 acres from A2 to R1 and split it into multiple 3–4-acre tracts drew six residents to speak in opposition. Planning & Zoning voted 4–0 to recommend denial, and the board voted to deny the rezoning following the recommendation.

Items tabled to Jan. 5

A package of items (agenda items 8–11), involving multiple variances and lot adjustments to address nonconforming lots and parcel-line changes, drew public opposition and a P&Z denial recommendation. Commissioners said they wanted more time to review technical questions about lot-of-record status, setbacks and variance procedures. The board voted to table those items for a Jan. 5 meeting at 6 p.m.; staff said no additional public hearings would be held because the public hearing record is complete.

Public comment highlights

Ramona Costa, an applicant for one of the items, told the board the family did not plan to add new structures and said rezoning would enable orderly division of property for children; she said the family had invested time cleaning the property. Melinda Baker, a neighbor, raised concerns about water reliability and cited zoning-minimum-parcel rules from the county document; Brenda Hart, a longtime nearby resident, said she feared increased noise and changes to the agricultural character.

Procedure and next steps

Where Planning & Zoning recommended approval, the board generally followed that recommendation. Commissioners asked staff for follow-up on technical lot-status questions for the tabled items and set Jan. 5, 2026, at 6 p.m. as the date to rehear items 8–11. Several approvals included conditions (for example, Item 6 requires lots be served by the public water system).