NEWTON COUNTY – A development that has been in the making for three years will see construction efforts continue, despite outcry from several concerned citizens.
At the Jan. 7 Board of Commissioners meeting, Covington Creek Holding LLC asked the board to overrule a planning commission’s decision to deny a one-year extension on a west-side rental home development. The planning commission denied the developer’s request for a preliminary plat extension in November 2024.
In a divided vote, the commissioners ultimately approved the appeal, voting 3-2. District 3 commissioner Stephanie Lindsey made the motion while commissioners Stan Edwards (District 1) and Demond Mason (District 2) voted alongside her.
As a result, the 71 new single-family rental units known as “Covington Creek Springs” will continue to be constructed on Fairview Road.
The developer received a preliminary plat in September of 2022 but encountered rock sometime in early 2023. The developers had to blast through the rock, putting them behind schedule for the anticipated two-year development process.
The development is in Lindsey’s populous District 3, and many of the district’s occupants came to Tuesday’s meeting to explain why they are against the construction and implore the commissioners to support the planning commission’s decision.
A total of seven public commenters spoke in opposition to the developer’s request, with none speaking in favor. Several of the complaints were regarding the rock blasting, with nearby residents saying that the developer’s blasting damaged the foundation of many homes in the neighborhood.
“Like the rest of the people that live in direct proximity to this, we’ve had damage to our homes from the equipment and the blasting for sure,” said Tim Guinn, a resident on Fairview Road. “This developer should’ve surveyed this land. His lack of planning should not be the cause of more pain and suffering for us.”
Former District 3 commissioner Alana Sanders took the stand for the first time since leaving office, expressing her concern that the homes were slated to be rentals instead of ownable homes.
“These should not be built,” Sanders said. “For one, they were told that these homes were going to be purchase homes and not rentals. That’s a problem as well with our ordinances; that’s a problem that people are coming up here stating they’re going to be building homes, and then later on they become rentals. This should not be approved.”
Thomas Mitchell, representation for Covington Creek Holding, argued that the owner’s property rights should entitle him to complete the development and that the project is already 80 percent done.
“The owner has an approved land development permit, he has an approved preliminary plat, he has done what staff has told him, he has complied with your code, and as a matter of law, he’s entitled to finish that,” Mitchell said. “I understand the concerns of the folks that came up here, but a lot of the things they’re talking about are either issues that can be addressed by code violations and there aren’t any, or should have been addressed in the zoning process or as one lady pointed out, in Newton County’s codes.”
Lindsey, conferring with county attorney Patrick Jaugstetter, explored the possibility of the county potentially being sued should the board deny the developer the opportunity to complete his project. According to Mitchell, Covington Creek Holding has already invested over $3 million into the site.
“Applied generally, not specifically to this instance, but if there is an instance in which the board denied a preliminary plan when the plan conforms in all respects to your zoning ordinances, the ability to successfully defend that lawsuit is remote,” Jaugstetter said.
Following several minutes of discussion, Lindsey – who seemed reluctant – made the motion to approve the appeal request.
“I don’t have a hard time saying no when I need to,” Lindsey said. “But it’s more difficult to say yes when you don’t want to, and I don’t want to. But, we have an obligation and the obligation that we have is like he said earlier: public health, safety and welfare. But that obligation is only applied to enacting zoning laws.
“As it relates to the decisions we made on this board, we have to act in the best interests of the county, period. And while I do not want to say yes to this, I am obligated to do so, so I’m going to motion to overrule the planning and zoning commission’s decision to deny the preliminary plat extension because that is in the best interest of the county.”
Despite the potential for legal issues, two commissioners sided with the public commenters and stood against the appeal: District 4 commissioner J.C. Henderson and District 5 commissioner LeAnne Long.
“The fact that the planning commission sided with the residents of District 3, then who am I to deny them that,” Henderson said.
The decision seemed to upset many in the crowd, with chairman Marcello Banes gaveling down the audience on multiple occasions. Lindsey, however, added her thoughts on future zoning decisions following the vote.
“I want to also add that we have to aggressively address our zoning laws as we move forward,” Lindsey said.
