Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tift County rezones 37.7 acres on Jacob Hall Road over residents' objections
Summary
The Board approved rezoning of about 37.7 acres on Jacob Hall Road from agricultural to rural-residential to permit a 27-lot subdivision with one-acre lots; several nearby residents presented a petition opposing the rezoning, but the motion passed 4-2.
The Tift County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 11 approved a rezoning request (TC-ZA-23-08) for roughly 37.7 acres on Jacob Hall Road, changing the property from AU (Agriculture) to RR1 (Rural Residential) to allow a 27-lot subdivision with one-acre lots.
Community Development Services Director Chris Davis told the board that the requested zoning change would permit creation of one-acre lots rather than the current three-acre minimums, require new paved roads and paving of Jacob Hall Road at the developer's expense, and use public water with private septic systems. Staff reported that the Tift County Health Department and other agencies had approved the proposed improvements and that a water pressure test confirmed adequate pressure for the area.
Multiple residents spoke in opposition. Ricky Sellars presented a petition and talking points opposing the application; other nearby residents who spoke against the rezoning included Bert Connell, Bubby Ledford, Dan Barry, James Wilson and Robyn Wilson. County Attorney Hank Pittman closed the public hearing after comments. Commissioner Paul Webb moved to approve the rezoning; Commissioner Greg Wood seconded. The motion passed 4-2, with Commissioners Stan Stalnaker and Melissa Hughes recorded as voting against.
Why it matters: Rezoning will allow smaller lot sizes and denser development than current zoning permits; residents voiced concerns in the public hearing and submitted a petition opposing the change. The developer must construct new paved roads and a point of ingress/egress will be subject to paving requirements at the developer's cost. The decision alters long-term land-use expectations for the affected properties and neighboring parcels.
Next steps: The developer must satisfy county permitting and road/utility construction requirements; the board did not specify a construction schedule during the meeting.
