Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County Fiscal Court splits on Hickman Hill rezoning; one map amendment approved, an adjoining parcel denied
Summary
After extended debate over conflicting staff and planning-commission recommendations, the Franklin County Fiscal Court voted 4-3 to approve a zone map amendment for the Hickman Hill parcel from Rural Residential (RA) to Agricultural (AG), while a neighboring RA-to-RR request was denied.
The Franklin County Fiscal Court on July 10 approved one contested zoning map amendment for a parcel on Hickman Hill and denied an adjoining request after more than two hours of debate over findings of fact and the planning commission's recommendation.
Supporters of the RA-to-AG change argued the proposed agricultural classification better fits the parcel's current and intended use. Squire Harrod (first reference: SEG 2169) read a proposed finding that "the existing zoning classification given to the property is less appropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is more appropriate," which formed the basis of the motion that passed on a roll-call vote (final roll call recorded at SEG 3991'SEG 4004). Opponents pointed to the comprehensive plan's suburban-residential future land-use designation and the planning commission's unanimous recommendation to deny the amendment (planning commission findings appear in the record and were discussed throughout SEG 1820'SEG 2650).
A second, adjoining request to reclassify a parcel from RA to Rural Residential (RR) was debated separately. The court voted to deny that application, citing lack of sewer availability and alignment with the comprehensive plan; the roll call on that motion appears at SEG 4076'SEG 4096 and resulted in the denial.
The debate focused on procedural and evidentiary questions: which findings of fact should anchor the court's decision (staff report vs. planning commission), whether the draft ordinance language matched the findings, and whether to hold additional public hearings before overturning a unanimous planning-commission recommendation. County Attorney (speaker 5) and planning staff were asked to revise the ordinance text to reflect whichever findings the court formally adopts.
The court moved its final votes into the formal voting session after closing the findings of fact in the work session; the transcript shows multiple procedural motions to adopt planning commission findings, to add a separate finding that the current RA zoning is "less appropriate," and then the final up-or-down votes. The RA-to-AG amendment carried 4'3 on the recorded roll call; the RA-to-RR amendment was denied by a 4'3 vote in its separate roll call.
What happens next: The decisions as recorded will be incorporated into the official ordinance language. County staff and the county attorney were asked to provide clear drafting (and guidance on conflict-of-interest rules) so the final ordinance and accompanying findings align with the court's votes.
