Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves rezoning for Aspelago Road parcel after divided public comment
Summary
The Gadsden County Commission approved a future land‑use change for a 72.48‑acre Aspelago Road parcel, moving it from AG‑3 (1 house per 20 acres) to AG‑1 (1 per 5 acres). Residents raised concerns about infrastructure, density and possible resale; the applicants said rezoning would allow their children the option to build.
The Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners voted 5‑0 to approve a small‑scale future land‑use change that reclassifies about 72.48 acres on Aspelago Road from AG‑3 to AG‑1, a move that increases the theoretical development potential from one house per 20 acres to one per five acres.
Planning staff told the board the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval and that state law requires the board to state the maximum theoretical development potential; staff said the 14‑unit figure is a maximum that site constraints such as wetlands and terrain may reduce. "We don't necessarily think the facts would support 14 units, but that's what we have to say," a planning official said during the hearing.
Neighbors and landowners gave mixed testimony. Kenneth Carroll, a landowner on Aspelago Road, urged the commission not to deny a family's right to develop or sell property: "No one should be denied that right because of their vocation," he said, urging the board to allow the Smiths to proceed. Other residents and a neighborhood letter submitted in advance warned that changing the designation could bring additional traffic, lower service levels and the potential for speculative resale.
Applicant Jennifer Smith told commissioners the family needs flexibility so her five children would each have the option to live on the property. "If we don't rezone it to AG‑1, then that limits us to one house per 20 acres ... So now you're telling me I have to pick and choose which kid can live there? That's not fair," she said.
Several commissioners asked staff to clarify how the county's "immediate family" density exception works and whether an exception or policy change would better meet local needs. Planning staff said the family‑lot exception limits division to the parent parcel plus up to three additional lots under the current rules and that any future subdivision and site development would still need Planning and Zoning approval and any required state permits.
Commissioners debated whether to hold a workshop to reevaluate the family‑lot exception and other density policies countywide; several members said a broader review of the ordinance would be appropriate. The board approved the Aspelago Road amendment on a 5‑0 recorded voice vote. The commission concluded that site‑specific constraints would govern actual buildable lots, and that future subdivisions would require separate planning approvals.
Next steps: Because the action was a future land‑use map amendment, any large‑scale subdivision or change beyond the approved land use will require separate planning‑level approvals.
