Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Burke County commissioners deny rezoning for Hancock Landing after residents submit petition

Burke County Board of Commissioners · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board rejected a request to rezone seven parcels to allow duplexes after residents and an opponent cited petitions with more than 100 signatures; the motion failed 2–3. Planning staff had said the rezoning was intended to permit duplex construction.

The Burke County Board of Commissioners voted down a rezoning request for the Hancock Landing project on Aug. 13, 2024, after residents opposed the change. The motion to rezone seven parcels from single-family (R1) to two-family (R2) failed 2–3, with Commissioners Lucious Abrams and Chair Terri Lodge Kelly voting in favor and Commissioners R. Tommy Nix, Evans Martin and Q. U. “Art” Lively voting against.

Planning and Zoning director Scott Lee told the Board the rezoning request (parcels 107-052K, 107-053F, 107-053G, 107-053H, 107-053J, 107-053K and 107-053L) was made so duplexes could be placed on each parcel. Robbie Boyd Jenkins addressed the Board on behalf of the Hancock Landing project in support of the change. Jack Lafoon spoke in opposition and reported that petitions with more than 100 signatures had been submitted to the Planning Commission opposing the rezoning.

The Board’s vote left the parcels at their existing R1 designation. Commissioners and public speakers were split over housing type and neighborhood impacts; the hearing record shows community opposition played a central role in the outcome.

What happens next: the failed rezoning means Hancock Landing cannot proceed with duplex construction under the current zoning; applicants may pursue alternatives such as a new application, variances, or use the existing zoning. The Planning and Zoning Office and the applicant were not recorded as providing additional immediate filings at the meeting.