Nearly 2,000 acres on the west side of Hampton were annexed into that city last week, with Henry County officials never raising an official objection to the move, although it seems likely they will voice their opposition at some point.

  The second reading of the ordinance finalizing the annexation took place during an Oct. 15 special called meeting of the Hampton City Council, exactly one week after the first reading was approved at the council’s regular monthly meeting. The vote was 6-0 on both occasions.

  A total of 1,934.75 acres, which included several different tracts and several landowners, made up the property in question. It included undeveloped parcels to the west of Hwy. 19/41, north and south of Richard Petty Blvd., north and south of Lower Woolsey Road, and north of the Spalding County line. All the land was zoned RA in the county, and the city’s plan was to keep that zoning.

  City officials stated that the annexation proceeded using the 100 percent method, meaning that all affected property owners requested annexation and signed a petition in that regard.

  The same night of the second and final vote by the Hampton City Council, the Henry County Board of Commissioners convened for its regular meeting and had the annexation of its agenda. But Dee Clemmons, whose district includes the entire city of Hampton and the property in questions, asked to remove it from the agenda so she could communicate with city officials and property owners about their intentions.

  She pointed out that all of the land being annexed was within the county’s Megasite, and she suspected there might be plans to build warehouses at some point, which will likely not be permitted within the Megasite.

  Clemmons is apparently too late to voice her concerns, at least in the eyes of Hampton leaders. “The annexation is final,” Hampton city manager Alex Cohilas stated in an email response to the Times two days after the meeting.

  While the issue was not discussed by the commissioners at their meeting, a report contained within the meeting agenda packet raised several significant concerns on the part of the county’s Planning & Zoning staff.

  A master plan for the Megasite, which officials plan to develop into a “major employment and retail destination” in the years to come, is still in development. The Future Land Use Map designation is for mixed use.

  An objection to a proposed annexation is valid if it is deemed to create a “substantial or significant change” in zoning or land use, density, or infrastructure demands. County staff offered that there could very well be those kinds of changes in this case.

  The staff report also charged that there was no mention by Hampton of the proposed land use for the area although it is required by state law. The current zoining could allow an increase in density without any change, and if the land remains undeveloped indefinitely it wold be inconsistent with the land use guidelines expect from the Megasite, according to the county report.

  Annexation would “inevitably cause disruption or termination of the master planning process and contradict plans for the Megasite,” the report stated.

  County staff alleged that the initial notice of the annexation request was not delivered to the county according to the requirements of state law, in which all notices are to be sent by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery. The subsequent notice was not received within five business days as established by state law, according to the report.

  Cohilas disputed these assertions. “Henry County was legally notified within the time required by by law,” he stated. “Henry County was notified via certified mail, email and hand delivery via courier.  Chairwoman Wood acknowledged receipt of the notification via an email to me.”

  Cohilas added that since the landowners did not request any zoning change, no proposed land use would have been included.

  While the subject properties remain RA-zoned for now, the property owners can legally request rezoning 12 months after annexation.