Spalding County commissioners deny rezoning for proposed convenience store and fuel service after packed public hearing

Spalding County commissioners on March 16 denied a request to rezone about 12.5 acres at the intersection of Williamson Road and Malloy Road (application 24-09Z, Mroy Reynolds LLC) from AR1 agricultural-residential to C1 highway commercial, after hours of resident testimony and attorney briefings.

Zoning counsel Newton Galloway opened the hearing by explaining that the case had been remanded from superior court and that the Board must treat it as a new public hearing. "The board of commissioners on remand cannot enter into what is known as contract zoning," he said, describing the limits of the remand process and the role of the remand agreement in framing potential conditions.

Applicant representatives said they had revised the plan to reduce impervious surface and to relocate access, and described compromises reached in pre-hearing discussions. Kirk Felto, speaking for the applicant, said the changes were intended to address previously raised concerns and to reduce the project's footprint.

But dozens of nearby residents and property owners told the board the project would harm the rural character of the area, increase truck traffic and risk long-term commercial creep. Chase Alexandrian, a Rover Road resident, told commissioners, "Public hearings should not feel like formalities," and urged them to avoid the appearance of backdoor negotiations and conflicts of interest. John Collier asked, "But what about constitution for the citizens?" expressing the frustration of neighbors who said they had not received clear information about the modified site plan.

Several speakers pressed the board on a related concern: the future of a historic farmhouse on the north parcel. Architect and preservation advocates described structural reports that they said did not recommend demolition and urged the county to explore renovation rather than a tear-down. Kenneth Moore said he had spoken to the structural engineer and that "nowhere in his report did he recommend demolishing the building."

After deliberations the board first considered a motion to approve the rezoning with conditions set out in the remand agreement; that motion failed. A motion to deny the application carried on a 4-1 voice vote, with the record showing four in favor of denial and one opposed. The board did not adopt rezoning; commissioners also discussed but did not make any additional binding commitments regarding the historic structure beyond noting the landowner retains property rights.

The public hearing, which included an explanation of the remand process by county zoning counsel and a series of citizen exchanges, began at the public hearing notice and closed before the board’s vote. The county attorney and staff advised the board on the remand agreement's constraints and on statutory rules governing conflicts of interest cited during the hearing.

No further action on the application was scheduled at the meeting. Residents in favor of preserving the rural character said they would continue to monitor the property; the applicant may pursue other administrative or legal options consistent with the law and the county's zoning code.