TIFTON — Concerned community members spoke out against proposed truck stop developments in the county at the July 3 Tift County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Out of concern for the massive impact the construction could have on the community, Reed Howell and a handful of other residents voiced their opposition to the project, requesting the commissioners consider applying regulations to similar proposals or reconsider allowing truck stops in the county entirely.

The development in question, proposed by resident Baljinda Singh, would see a travel center built in Chula along U.S. Highway 41. Community development director Chris Davis reported that Singh and his agent Jerime Buffington had submitted a rezoning application for 0.09 acres of land Singh owned in the area for the commissioners to discuss at the same meeting, requesting the tract be rezoned from Agriculture to General Business.

This would match its classification to Singh’s adjacent property and allow him to put all of it towards developing the travel center.

Davis said that the Greater Tift County Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed rezoning during their June 13 meeting, coming to a vote of 2-2, as only four members were present, and recommending denial.

Howell agreed with the recommendation, fearing the county did not have enough information on the effect the center could have on the surrounding community. He was certain the truck stop would continue to have a detrimental impact on the county for generations, and proposed the commissioners place a moratorium on projects related to truck stops, regardless of their decision, until they could gather more information or create ordinances to better regulate their development.

He suggested the commissioners consider an ordinance prohibiting truck stops from being established within 2500 feet of a school, noting the proposed development area’s existing proximity to Tiftarea Academy.

Aware that the county would likely face backlash for opposing the development of travel centers, he argued that the wellbeing of county residents should be worth that, and challenged the commissioners to take a stand on this case.

He reminded them of the federal legal case between Rockdale County and William Corey regarding the former’s blanket ban on the development of truck stops in the county, in which despite Corey arguing that the ordinance had violated laws prohibiting regulations that would deny commercial vehicles access to basic necessities while traveling, the federal court ruled in favor of the county on the grounds that said laws provided exceptions for state and local laws based on safety considerations.

Howell also expressed concern over the lack of information regarding the site’s zoning classifications and the viability of a General Business classification being suitable for a travel center.

Mark Freeman seconded Howell’s information concerns, reporting that the project did not have the state and county mandated Development of Rezoning Impact documentation, which would provide information and projections on how a proposed rezoning for a large scale development would affect the surrounding community. Freeman stated he also provided this information to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Freeman explained that truck stops in particular require Development of Rezoning Impact documentation when they are planned to be developed with ten or more truck parking spaces, noting that the proposed site plan for the Chula travel center had planned to have over 140, meaning the mandated documentation would certainly be required, but had not been provided.

Crystal Gaillard, planning and zoning director for the City of Tifton, also took issue with the planned development and the lack of information regarding it.

She reported that the applicant had stated during the Planning and Zoning meeting that the travel center would have two entrances, with trucks coming in off of Highway 41 and normal vehicles entering from Chula Brookfield Road, but that this information had not been recorded in the meeting minutes and as such had most likely not reached the commissioners either.

Gaillard also noted that staff reports had claimed adjacent properties were either vacant, forested, or commercially used, but she said two of the adjacent properties were in fact occupied and residential areas that would no doubt suffer extensively from trucks coming in and out of the travel center at all hours of the day.

She said the applicant had confirmed that the state Department of Transportation would require a traffic study, and asked if the commissioners planned to vote on the item without that study being conducted.

Commissioners will discuss the proposed development further at their upcoming July 8 meeting.