Henry County OKs ULDC change and rezones 1,277-acre Grove site with conditions after hours of public comment

The Henry County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday approved a countywide amendment to the Unified Land Development Code and rezoned roughly 1,277.6 acres along Highway 1941 North for a mixed‑use project called The Grove, while directing additional limits on multifamily housing and rentals.

Chair Carlotta Harrell opened the meeting by disclosing she had no personal interest in the rezoning discussion: “I, Chair Carlotta Harrell, have no personal interest in this matter and will not benefit from the approval or denial of this application.” The board then voted to permit development agreements in resource‑protected areas through the ULDC amendment (ULDC AM‑24‑03) and approved the rezoning (RZ‑24‑27) from multiple residential and commercial districts to a single mixed‑use designation, subject to reductions in multifamily units and a lower rental cap.

The vote clears a path for a proposed 40‑year master plan by Henry County Land Company LLC and its developer partner GSM Capital. The Grove, as presented, would include a mix of single‑family and multifamily housing, more than 2 million square feet of commercial space, a 180‑room hotel, and 150 acres of open space. Staff said the proposal would allow a gross residential density of about 5.6 units per acre and not exceed 8 units per acre net, consistent with the county’s low‑density mixed‑use future land‑use designation.

Why it matters: The ULDC amendment creates a mechanism — development agreements — that gives the county and developer more flexibility to create a single, long‑term regulatory framework for a very large, phased project. Supporters argue a master plan can deliver coordinated infrastructure, retail and a potential medical facility; opponents warned of risks to water quality, traffic, and local schools.

What the board approved and next steps The board first approved the ULDC amendment to allow development agreements in portions of resource protection areas, and staff recommended the change as consistent with an ongoing countywide ULDC rewrite. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the ULDC amendment; the motion carried. The board later approved the rezoning request for about 1,277.62 acres (RZ‑24‑27) with two explicit conditions incorporated at the dais: a reduction of roughly 1,000 multifamily units from the applicant’s plan and a rental cap lowered to 10 percent. Commissioner Amos moved the rezoning with those conditions; the motion carried on a voice/hand vote. The development agreement itself was not before the board and will require a separate advertised public hearing and further review with county staff and applicable utility authorities.

What the developer said Patrick Brooks, vice president of GSM Capital and the project spokesperson, described The Grove as a 25–40‑year, master‑planned community intended “to provide a full life‑cycle community that offers attainable housing from a resident’s first home to their dream home.” Brooks said the developer has met with both Henry County and Clayton County water authorities, planning staff and other agencies and that road improvements required by state review would be privately funded by the developer. He told commissioners the project includes “over double the required amount of green space for a minimum total of 150 acres” and that the developer is exploring medical and commercial partners, including preliminary conversations with Piedmont Health.

Water, stormwater and technical assurances The proposal drew the most sustained public opposition on water and stormwater concerns. Resident Carlton Grant, who said he holds Georgia Class 1 water and wastewater operator licenses, told commissioners: “If the rezoning is approved, it would severely impact the Shoal Creek Watershed in a negative way.” Several speakers urged delay for more community meetings and for full technical review of infrastructure impacts.

The applicant’s water quality expert, Dr. Bridal Wellington, answered residents’ technical questions, arguing that on‑site controls and best management practices would be used: “Water quality will be controlled on the site by the means of what are called best management practices… GEOSAM has not only [agreed] to apply those best management practices, but they are also willing to go above and beyond those practices to use the best available technology.” Wellington and the applicant cited use of infiltration systems, detention basins and coagulants to settle suspended sediment, and said separate service and development agreements with the relevant water authority(ies) will be required if the project proceeds.

Infrastructure funding and feasibility figures County staff and the applicant described differing cost estimates in studies submitted during review. The applicant said a feasibility review estimated about $130 million for sewer infrastructure and $51 million for water; county references earlier in the record noted higher aggregate cost estimates. Commissioners and residents asked for clarity on who would pay for off‑site and on‑site infrastructure; applicant representatives repeatedly stated that the road, water and sewer improvements identified in state and regional reviews would be private developer investments, not county general‑fund expenditures. Any service agreements with Henry County Water Authority or Clayton County Water Authority must be negotiated separately and require those authorities’ approvals.

Community concerns and county responses Residents raised specific concerns about traffic on Highway 1941, narrow local neighborhood roads (North Drive and Circle Drive), emergency access across the earthen Lake Talmadge dam, potential sediment and contaminant loads to Lake Talmadge and Shoal Creek, septic field impacts during utility installation, and school capacity. The county planning presentation estimated the development at full build‑out could generate an estimated 5,000 additional students over the 40‑year build‑out and said discussions with the Henry County Board of Education are ongoing. Several speakers asked the board to table action and hold additional public education sessions; the board voted to move forward with the zoning decision while noting the development agreement and technical approvals remain to be negotiated.

Other board comments Commissioners expressed mixed views. Several commissioners emphasized the difference between the zoning entitlement before them and later development agreement negotiations. Commissioner Amos said he supports master‑planned development but pushed to lower multifamily counts and reduce the rental cap; those conditions were added at the board meeting. County staff and the chair committed to including the relevant water authorities and additional technical review when the development agreement is considered.

What was not decided The development agreement (the 40‑year contract that would specify timing, phasing, infrastructure obligations and many standards) was not executed or approved at this meeting. The board approved zoning only; the development agreement will be considered at a later advertised hearing and must address outstanding technical and interagency service agreements.

Votes at a glance - ULDC amendment (ULDC AM‑24‑03): Motion to approve moved by Commissioner Lewis; motion carried (vote tally not specified in the record). - Rezoning (RZ‑24‑27) to PD‑MU (The Grove): Motion to approve moved by Commissioner Amos with conditions (reduce multifamily units by ~1,000; rental cap lowered to 10%); motion carried (vote tally not specified in the record).

Limitations and next steps The board’s actions permit the developer to continue design, permitting and negotiation but do not authorize construction. Separate approvals and service agreements are required from Henry County Water Authority and Clayton County Water Authority, state permitting authorities, and a future development‑agreement vote will return to the commission. Commissioners and staff recorded an intention to bring water authority representatives and additional technical materials to the development‑agreement hearing.

Ending note The Grove project drew more than a dozen public speakers and extended the meeting beyond its original time. Commissioners approved the zoning framework that allows a development agreement in resource‑protected areas and established conditions intended to reduce multifamily density and limit rentals; many technical and interagency approvals remain outstanding and will determine the project’s ultimate scope and timing.