Fayette County split over City of Fayetteville’s 242-acre annexation; motion to not object fails

The Fayette County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 22, 2026, debated whether to object to a City of Fayetteville Step 2 request to annex three parcels totaling about 242 acres along SR 85 North and SR 314, then split 2-2 on a motion to formally 'not object,' leaving the city free to proceed.

Planning and Zoning Director Debbie Bell told the Board the City proposed L‑I (light industrial/business park) zoning for the parcels, and county staff concluded the request was consistent with county zoning and did not warrant an objection under Georgia law (OCGA 36-36-113). Bell said Environmental Health supported the annexation because connecting to public sanitary sewer would address septic issues at the Fun Spot development, while the Fire Department had raised concerns about potential loss of revenue.

Vice Chairman Edward Gibbons moved that the Board not object. The motion drew questioning and reservations from some commissioners. Commissioner Eric K. Maxwell said he was not comfortable endorsing a position without more information about likely uses, noting that data centers are a permitted use under the proposed zoning. "My concern is not knowing what they plan to put there," Maxwell said.

Commissioner Charles W. Oddo said he had no material basis to object under the law and cautioned that lodging an objection would likely trigger arbitration and risk a loss for the county; he urged the City to conduct traffic‑impact studies for the corridor. "If there is no viable reason for the County to object, it makes no sense to do so," Oddo said.

Commissioner Charles D. Rousseau said residents near the rear of the proposed site had contacted him with concerns and that he had "very serious concerns and reservations" about the annexation’s local impacts. He urged a more collaborative approach to development and zoning during the county’s upcoming comprehensive‑plan review.

County Administrator Steve Rapson told the Board the request was consistent with county zoning, and the City was not required to disclose detailed future plans. County Attorney Dennis Davenport noted a 30‑day objection window under state law and clarified the practical consequence of the split vote: "No vote by the Board means that no objection was lodged and as a result the City of Fayetteville would move forward with the annexation." The motion to not object failed 2-2, with Maxwell and Rousseau opposed and the remainder voting in favor.

The City of Fayetteville’s public hearings on the annexation were scheduled for Jan. 27 (Planning and Zoning) and Feb. 19 (Mayor and City Council). The county record includes staff concerns about traffic and Fire Department revenue, a staff determination that the request does not warrant objection under OCGA 36-36-113, and residents’ outreach opposing the annexation.

Because the Board did not lodge an objection within the statutory timeframe, the city may proceed with the annexation process.