The Henry County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission reviewed a draft land use chapter of the county’s updated comprehensive plan during a joint work session on Sept. 22.
Board Chairman Jim Adams, of the Blackberry District, said developing the comprehensive plan is essential as the county looks toward its future.
“It’s important to kind of have a roadmap. You strike out. What direction are we headed? Why do we want to do that? What do we hope to develop for future improvements,” Adams said, outlining some of the questions to be answered.
The county’s comprehensive plan has not been fully updated since 1995.
Planning, Zoning & Inspections Director Lee Clark, AICP, said that’s why the new plan is needed.
“You don’t hear us referencing an old document anymore. We did assess the old document for everything that we’ve accomplished, but we didn’t use anything out of it to build on. The format, everything that was part of that ‘95 document, is old and outdated,” he said.
Clark said Henry County achieved nearly all of the goals and objectives in the 1995 plan.
“Which is great, so actually it’s a perfect time to start with a brand new document with all new goals and objectives,” he said.
Once adopted, the comprehensive plan will be formally reviewed every five years.
“It can be changed and amended. I mean, that’s the reason why we review it every five years, because things change, situations change, development happens. You want that comp. plan to remain as current as possible,” Clark said.
This was the fifth work session held on the plan update. The next is scheduled for Nov. 24. Afterward, draft chapters will be posted online for public review, followed by open houses where residents can meet with staff to discuss specific topics. The goal is to adopt the plan in spring 2026.
Land Use Chapter
Berkley Senior Planner Benjamin Tripp said the chapter addresses existing development patterns, zoning and subdivision regulations, and development suitability analysis.
“Our chapter goal: Henry County creates new opportunities for development and reinvestment that enhance community character and support long-term community vitality,” Tripp said.
One objective is to modernize regulations by creating flexible tools that balance growth with preservation of the county’s natural environment.
Planning Commission member Stuart Bowman suggested the mission statement should explicitly mention maintaining natural areas.
“In other words, we don’t want everything gone or switched over. Should we say anything in here about maintaining? I mean, we’ve done a great job with our parks and possibly a new state park and things like that, does this need to say anything about maintaining some of those,” Bowman asked. “We’re focused on development and moving forward and progress, I understand that totally, but at the same time, is there certain parts that we want to make sure we maintain.”
Pam Cobler, of the Reed Creek District, agreed.
Commission member Jeff Prillaman said he had no objection to adding the language, and Clark also agreed.
“That’s probably 90 percent of our total land use area. So, calling it out on here, the end result is that, so it doesn’t hurt at all to say that’s one of our goals,” Clark said.
The board and commission agreed to include preservation in the mission statement.
Modernization and Regional Coordination
Tripp recommended establishing a structured review cycle for the plan, including an annual report from the Planning Commission to county leadership. He also suggested a land bank program and pattern books for historic small towns to support adaptive reuse.
To strengthen regional ties and to support its land use goals objective, Tripp said the county should partner with neighboring localities on redevelopment strategies, shared corridors, and focus on shared corridors and underutilized industrial sites.
The county should also “formalize annual coordination meetings with neighboring localities, infrastructure providers, and align infrastructure investment in land use policies that affect regional land use, and collaborate on joint, small area plans for shared gateways,” he said.
Emerging land uses such as solar, wind, nuclear, data centers, and battery storage should also be addressed with updated zoning standards, he said.
“Regardless of how you may feel about them or even the potential for them, … it’s worth planning and thinking about because you never quite know what might come on down the road,” Tripp said.
Tripp presented best management practices from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, but Cobler expressed concern about adopting them wholesale.
She said when she sees best practices and only sees solar and wind as the only renewable energies listed, it makes her think it’s a Berkley best practice, and not a Henry County best practice.
After some discussion regarding the table, Clark said he wasn’t comfortable and didn’t think the board would be comfortable with adopting it as their document, their policy statement, for these types of uses, because there’s not going to be a consensus on that.
“Everyone’s got their individual beliefs and thoughts on it, so honestly, I don’t think this is going to fit into our document,” he said.
Prillaman agreed, and the board recommended striking the table from the draft.
Suitability Model
Tripp also outlined a land suitability model that would score parcels of land from 1 to 10 based on their appropriateness for uses such as industry, residential, or mixed-use development.
“For example, proximity to highways and freight cars is very important to industrial development; it’s not so super important to residential,” he said. Areas with higher scores are deemed to be more suitable for a particular use than other areas, which may have a lower score.”
Maps created with the model would identify the most desirable areas for residential neighborhoods, business and employment centers, mixed-use areas, rural crossroads, and other designations.
