Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Contested drag‑strip proposal in Unadilla remains unresolved after hearings

Dooly County Board of Commissioners · March 2, 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

Michael Reece appealed a Planning Commission denial to build a drag strip north of Unadilla; after hearings the board required technical submissions (Item 11 A–F of Article X and a certified sound study) and later tabled for 90 days when those items were not provided.

A controversial application to build a drag strip on Highway 41 north of Unadilla drew supporters and opponents to public hearings before the Dooly County Board of Commissioners in February and March 2009.

Applicant Michael Reece appealed the Planning Commission’s denial and requested a conditional-use permit. The board heard testimony on Feb. 19 and again on March 5. Attorney Nelson Dupree spoke on behalf of citizens opposed to the project; several residents raised concerns about noise and property impacts. The board emphasized submission requirements under the county zoning ordinance (Item 11 A–F of Section 3, Article X), and at one point voted on a motion to approve the request subject to Reece providing the specified documentation and a certified sound-engineer study — that motion failed.

Later the commissioners voted to table the matter for 90 days to allow Reece time to provide the necessary paperwork and a certified sound study. At a subsequent meeting Reece asked to present a purchased sound-decibel meter and a video dramatization in lieu of the certified study; commissioners voted against that substitution. At the May 21 meeting Mr. Reece again presented paperwork but the motion to grant the conditional use did not obtain the necessary votes; Mr. Reece said he would not appeal the decision.

Why it matters: the county treated the application as a land-use and public-safety question and repeatedly asked the applicant to meet ordinance standards and provide technical evidence before any conditional use could be approved.

What’s next: the record shows the commission required either the technical documentation or a formal appeal; minutes record motions to table and to require a certified sound study as prerequisites for approval.