Board denies D.R. Horton rezoning and comprehensive-plan change for Mount Carmel site after residents raise quality and infrastructure concerns

The Henry County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday denied both a comprehensive-plan amendment and a rezoning request from D.R. Horton that would have allowed a 98‑lot single‑family subdivision on roughly 110.9 acres at Mount Carmel and Jones Road.

The developer requested a change from the county’s medium‑density future‑land‑use designation to low‑density suburban so the site could be developed on septic. At the meeting, planning staff said water was available but sewer service was more than a mile away and not available to the site; staff recommended approval of the comprehensive‑plan amendment and the rezoning to R‑2 septic.

Dozens of residents spoke in opposition during the public hearing, warning about stormwater and wetlands, school capacity, and the builder’s construction record. Opponents cited local complaints about D.R. Horton work quality, alleged grading or wetlands impacts and concerns about further overloading nearby schools. Multiple residents also told commissioners the property is farmland and that other buyers were prepared to buy and preserve it if the board denied the zoning change.

Attorney Michelle Battle, representing the applicant, said the developer had revised elevations and offered to work with the district commissioner on final facades, and that the proposed density (0.88 units per acre) fit the low‑density designation being requested. She also said the landowner had been under contract with the builder for years and that no alternative buyer with a closed deal was in place.

Commissioner Kent Taylor (District 5) and others expressed frustration with what they described as insufficiently upgraded housing designs offered by the builder. After discussion, Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the comprehensive‑plan amendment; the motion carried. He then moved to deny the rezoning; that motion also carried.

Why it matters: The action prevents the proposed subdivision from moving forward as presented, keeps the future‑land‑use map unchanged for this site, and reflects sustained public pushback about infrastructure capacity, wetlands and the specific builder’s product. The decision also preserves the site’s existing agricultural designation until a different applicant or a different proposal is brought forward.

Votes and formal actions: The board voted to deny both the comprehensive‑plan amendment and the rezoning; the motions were approved after a public hearing and public comment period.