Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greene County commissioners reject rezoning for Roaring Fork Road truck-repair site after neighbors object
Summary
After hours of public testimony May 18, Greene County commissioners voted 8–12 against rezoning 290 Roaring Fork Road from agricultural to general business, following sustained objections from nearby residents who said the truck-repair plan would increase traffic, noise and runoff risks.
Greene County commissioners voted on May 18 to deny a request to rezone 290 Roaring Fork Road—an almost 20-acre parcel—from A‑1 (General Agriculture) to B‑2 (General Business) after residents described noise, traffic and environmental concerns.
The proposal, offered by prospective buyer Ben McInturff, would have allowed a family trucking and repair operation. McInturff told the commission the business would be "a small family business which is less than 10 trucks" and said the operation would relocate from a site the owner has outgrown.
Neighbors spoke at length during the public hearing. Charlie Sullivan, whose home is adjacent, described the property line they share and warned the change would transform a quiet agricultural stretch into a working truck yard. "If the zoning is changed from Agricultural to business, there would be more traffic on the property's long one‑lane gravel driveway," Sullivan said, adding concerns about parking, vehicle‑fluid runoff into a nearby pond and the prospect of future, larger commercial uses.
Other residents argued the rezoning would amount to spot zoning—permanently changing the character of a rural area and reducing nearby home values. Dalton McLain, a newly built homeowner across the road, told commissioners his main worry was what would happen if the property were sold again. "What happens after Ben?" he asked.
Representing the sellers and buyer, realtor Mike McNeese described McInturff's track record and said he expected the new owner to maintain the property and operations responsibly. The planning‑level materials submitted with the application included site photos and a presentation arguing the parcel's improvements and access made it suited for business use.
Commission debate touched on competing priorities: the owner's stated business needs versus neighbors' quality‑of‑life concerns. After discussion, the commission considered a motion to approve the rezoning. The motion failed on final roll‑call, 8 in favor and 12 opposed, so the property remains zoned A‑1.
What it means: Without rezoning, a truck‑repair facility requiring B‑2 zoning cannot operate at that site. The applicant may reapply, offer more binding restrictions in a conditional zoning application, or seek an alternate site. Neighbors left the meeting reassured that the review preserved the agricultural zoning for the immediate area; proponents said they will explore other options.
The commission moved on to other business after recording the vote.
