Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission denies rezoning request for High Falls Road mini-warehouse proposal

Spalding County Planning Commission · July 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Spalding County Planning Commission voted to deny a rezoning request from R-2 to C-1C for a 5.48-acre parcel on High Falls Road proposed for mini‑storage and outdoor vehicle storage, citing airport‑overlay compatibility and missing site-plan details.

The Spalding County Planning Commission on July 28 denied application 26-11Z, a request from Blocker and Rochester LLC to rezone Parcel 22001009 (1767 High Falls Road) from R-2 to C-1C for a mini‑warehouse and outdoor storage yard. Staff had recommended denial, saying the proposed use did not meet the airport‑overlay guidelines and the submitted concept lacked required site‑plan information.

“Right now, as it stands, we recommend denial for rezoning,” Miss Morales told the commission, citing missing elements in the site submittal and concerns about compliance with the airport overlay. Applicant counsel Laura Benz argued the property was rendered unsuitable for residential use after the airport authority acquired most of the original tract and described a conceptual plan of 10 storage buildings and outdoor parking, noting structures would be kept under 10 feet to meet height restrictions. Resident Harvey Clark, who lives a few hundred feet from the site, said he feared noise and late‑night unauthorized uses, asking that hours and access be controlled: “If we can just make sure it stays quiet in there or they can't come in there after 10PM and can't come back in till, you know, 7AM, that's fine with me,” Clark said.

A motion to deny the rezoning was made by Douglas Hardwick and seconded by Mr. Harris; the chair announced the motion carried (the board signified agreement). The denial leaves the parcel in R-2; staff and applicants discussed next steps including completing a traffic study and any site‑specific conditions should a future application be filed.