Planning commission approves 69‑lot 'Oaks at Jerome Creek' after debate over flooding, traffic and notices

The City of Central planning commission on Aug. 28 approved a preliminary plan for the Oaks at Jerome Creek, a proposed 69‑lot residential subdivision on 111.77 acres of the Jesse Inman property, after more than two hours of public comment and technical discussion.

The applicant’s representative, Jonathan Bradley, an engineer with MR Engineering, said the project would yield 69 single‑family lots averaging about 1 acre each; “No lot is less than 0.56 acres,” he said. Bradley told the commission the design includes two detention ponds and that the development is intended as a gated, private subdivision built to public standards.

The approval carries staff conditions. Planning staff and the applicant emphasized the project must pass a city‑required off‑site drainage analysis (ODA) and meet the city’s no‑net‑fill rules and other engineering requirements before final approval. Bradley said the ponds were sized for the 100‑year storm and that the design reduces the 100‑year runoff by about 23 percent.

Why it matters: Residents said the site sits within an established drainage and conveyance area and warned that additional development could exacerbate flooding, increase traffic on Greenville Springs Road and strain schools and emergency services. Many speakers also said they had not received accurate mailed notices for the meeting, and several pointed to mismatched names on mailed notices.

Opponents at the hearing included long‑time Central residents who described traffic problems on Greenville Springs Road and expressed doubts the project’s drainage and traffic measures would protect existing neighborhoods. “It’s ludicrous to try to shove that many more people in this one little triangle,” said Monty Wallach, a Villa Trace resident. Terry Lockwood, a Villa Lake resident, said a notice mailed to his address was addressed to a different person and that he had not otherwise received official notification.

Other residents raised flooding and insurance concerns. “Who’s gonna pay my flood insurance?” asked Darryl Williams, a nearby homeowner who said his property did not flood in 2016 but worried that new development could change local flood behavior. Several speakers asked whether detention ponds would trap sediment and whether ponds would require periodic dredging.

Traffic and connectivity were central topics. The applicant said the development’s peak PM hour trips are about 73, under the state threshold that would trigger additional DOTD requirements, and that the single entrance was approved by DOTD after coordination. Commission members raised the need for stacking space at the gated entrance, turn‑lane feasibility on Greenville Springs Road and whether the subdivision should be required to provide future public connectivity. The engineer said the gated entrance was set back more than 200 feet to allow stacking for multiple vehicles.

The commission discussed several technical and code issues at length: whether block lengths and corner side‑yard setbacks in the plan met city standards; how conveyance zones are handled in the off‑site drainage analysis; whether the proposed private streets might later be accepted for public maintenance; and HOA responsibilities for long‑term lake and pond maintenance. The applicant’s preliminary HOA estimate was roughly $1,650 annually, the engineer said, but the commission asked for more detailed financial justification at later stages.

Commissioners stressed the difference between preliminary approval and final entitlement. Several members said they would expect the ODA and traffic studies to be independently reviewed and that any failure to meet code at later stages could block final approval. “If you can’t meet all of our ordinances, then no,” one commissioner said during discussion.

The vote: The commission voted to approve the preliminary plan with staff recommendations and the requirement that the project meet the ODA, city no‑net‑fill provisions and other engineering conditions before final approval. The motion passed on roll call.

Next steps: The developer must complete the off‑site drainage analysis and provide final engineering, grading and stormwater plans for additional city and third‑party review before the final development plan and any building permits can be issued.

Residents and the applicant exchanged technical details and follow‑up commitments at the meeting; the project will return to the commission and City Council for additional approvals if the ODA and final plans meet requirements.