Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 1357 Old Canton topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County supervisors table C‑2 rezoning for 1357 Old Canton Road after neighbors object
Summary
Owners asked to rezone 1357 Old Canton Road to C‑2 for an office/closing‑center project; neighbors raised concerns about residential character, traffic, lights and future uses. Petitioners offered easements and stated they would not permit liquor or late‑night businesses; the board tabled the matter to April 9 for further talks.
Sharon Hartegree, who identified herself as a property owner at 1357 Old Canton Road, asked the Madison County board to approve a rezoning of her parcel to C‑2 to allow office uses including an attorney/closing center and small professional suites.
"We visited with our neighbors, spoke with them," Hartegree said, adding that the family intended the development to be low‑impact: "We assured them there would be no huge lights, no juke joint, no liquor store... We will be contributing to the community." She said the family would grant a 20‑foot easement and that the proposed uses would generally operate 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Several nearby homeowners spoke in opposition. George Carmine, who said he owns adjoining property, said he opposed commercial rezoning because the area was residential when he bought his land: "I oppose it because when I bought that land, it was all residential, and it's still residential according to this map." Laura Jackson, who identified herself as a real estate agent and neighbor, said she had invested in her home and did not expect commercial development so soon.
Neighbors raised specific concerns about traffic, safety, lights, loss of frontage from planned road widening, and uncertainty about who would control future uses if the land were rezoned and later sold. Commissioners noted that restrictions discussed at the hearing could be written as conditions in the zoning approval: if the board approves with conditions, the record can limit uses (for example, barring liquor stores) so a later purchaser could not automatically open prohibited businesses.
Board members asked clarifying questions about the petitioners' intentions and timelines. The petitioners said they had spoken with a contractor and with Community Bank but had no binding tenancy agreements; they said ExxonMobil activity nearby might affect timing. After extended public comment and back‑and‑forth about potential conditions, a motion to table the request carried so the parties could meet and seek common ground.
The board tabled the petition; commissioners said the item will return for further consideration at the next public hearing scheduled for April 9. The move to table does not represent a final approval or denial.
