Madison County planning board denies Makita rezoning for 357-acre site after residents’ objections

The Madison County Planning & Zoning Board voted 5-0 on Feb. 12 to deny a petition from Makita to rezone 357 acres from agricultural to I-2 industrial, following a lengthy public hearing in which several nearby residents urged the board to reject the proposal.

The petitioners, represented by attorney Skip Jernigan, said the rezoning is needed for future economic development and noted the parcel’s proximity to ongoing projects, including the Amazon site across the road. "We are the petitioners seeking a rezoning of 357 acres to I 2," Jernigan told the board, adding that Makita "is in need of additional industrial land" and that the company had met legal criteria presented at the previous meeting.

Nearby homeowners and longtime residents strongly disputed that need. Deverio Manning, speaking for objecting neighbors, said the group was "not against growth" but opposed how the change would affect their way of life and asked the board to weigh the human impacts alongside economics. Resident Nancy Pate, who lives adjacent to the property, said there was no mistake in the original agricultural zoning and that the neighborhood character had not changed enough to justify heavy industry: "There is no public need for heavy industry in that area," she said, raising concerns about maximum building heights, proximity to homes and the effectiveness of proposed buffers and berms.

Other public commenters raised environmental and infrastructure concerns, including sewer capacity and odors, traffic, potential air emissions from proposed food-related manufacturers, and possible declines in property values. Janet Whittington highlighted emergency-services capacity and said Madison County’s fire and police resources may be strained by additional large developments.

Board members and staff discussed options including conditional rezoning — attaching enforceable conditions such as larger setbacks, vegetative buffers, berms and restrictive covenants — and clarified that covenants can, when written into an approval, become part of the zoning and enforceable by the county. A staff member explained the proposed covenants "do specifically give the county the right to enforce those" if they are made conditions of approval.

After hearing public testimony and applicant remarks that site-plan review would address many issues, a board member moved to deny the rezoning petition. The motion was seconded and, after a roll-call clarification, the board recorded a 5-0 vote to deny the petition. The board closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda items.

The denied application, as presented, sought a reclassification from agricultural to I-2 for a 357-acre parcel and included a proposed vegetative buffer and berm; opponents said the promised mitigation was not guaranteed and questioned how restrictive covenants would be enforced in practice. The applicant said some restrictions were included in its application and that prior objections had led it to narrow the scope of the original proposal.

The board’s decision was procedural and based on the public hearing record; any future application or a conditional rezoning with different terms would require a new filing or a modified proposal and another public hearing.