Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple rezoning and subdivision applications advance to discussion in Madison County
Summary
Planning staff presented a set of rezoning and subdivision proposals — including a three-lot split for Old South Madison LLC, a 14-lot R3 subdivision, and a business-to-residential rezoning — with questions about access, lot sizes and comp-plan consistency.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner (S5) briefed Madison County officials on several land-use applications ranging from lot splits to a proposed 14-lot subdivision, prompting detailed questions about road access, lot-size minima and consistency with the county’s comprehensive plan.
Jay Pridgen sought approvals to reconfigure three five-acre tracts so one parcel becomes six acres, enabling a future lot split if the Unified Development Code minimum lot size is reduced. Planner (S5) said one of the tracks already has a house under construction and the owner intends the parcels to be family lots.
Matt Thomas, owner of Old South Madison LLC, requested rezoning of roughly 29.74 acres from A1 to A2 to combine with an adjacent 1.475-acre parcel and divide into three tracts of about 10 acres each. Commissioners focused on whether a private drive or easement that would serve the lots exceeds the county’s 1,500-foot private-access limit and whether the drive’s length requires special approval.
Casey Marva presented an application for a 22.03-acre tract to rezone from A1 to R3 for a 14-lot subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 0.75 to 1.84 acres and a 6.54-acre open space tract; staff noted the parcel’s tax record formerly listed a larger acreage and the comp plan’s undefined phrase "median density housing" created interpretive questions.
Planner (S5) also presented a request by Preston Strickland to rezone a 1.67-acre property from business to R1 to legalize a long-standing residential mobile-home use; staff noted the change is inconsistent with the comp plan’s rural-conservation area but would cure a nonconforming use.
Commissioners asked for additional materials: road-department review of private-drive length and a clearer explanation of how each rezoning aligns with the comprehensive plan. Staff will follow up with the documents and return with recommendations at the next hearing.

