Greene County planners weigh small drone‑testing campus on county land amid neighborhood pushback

Staff opened a work session by presenting a concept for a small, county‑managed testing campus on county‑owned land that could host limited drone and unmanned‑vehicle testing. The presentation said the county would retain scheduling and regulatory authority, require contractors to show licenses and insurance, and use a special‑use permit to set conditions on hours, noise and numbers of people. "The county would manage the people on‑site…they would have to prove their insurance and their licensing capability," the staff member said.

Commissioners and participants focused on operational limits and site suitability. One commissioner cautioned that the parcel lies close to downtown and noted population figures in the area, saying the site "is way too close to downtown" and that an internal buffer or an alternate site should be considered. Staff said the county would seek FAA approvals that set flight ceilings and that contracts would require licensed operators and documented safety procedures.

Public commenters pressed the commission on livability and enforcement. Shelby Afril, who said she lives about two miles from the site, urged the commission to reject rezoning at that location, calling it "a really bad idea" and expressing concern about noise and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Property owner Reggie Cogdell said the location was "an accident waiting to happen" and asked whether other, more remote county parcels had been considered. Justin Davis, a neighbor, warned that landowner permissions to allow flights over private property could leave nearby residents with limited remedies: "You can call the police and tell them that, but there won't be anything they can do."

Staff and an industry‑experienced presenter offered technical context: an informal FAA assessment showed no immediate flight‑path conflict and Part 107 operators are generally limited to 55 pounds. Staff and others recommended condition language that would bar projectiles and require companies to remain within the permitted property or lose access. The commission agreed to pursue an on‑site demonstration for commissioners and neighbors to evaluate noise and operations before deciding whether to move the proposal to the Board of Supervisors.

The next procedural step is an on‑site demonstration to be scheduled at an evening or weekend time to encourage neighbor attendance; staff will poll commissioners on dates and report the meeting highlights to the Board of Supervisors.