Henry County approves 1,277‑acre "The Grove" master development agreement with conditions and water oversight questions

The Henry County Board of Commissioners on July 1 approved a master development agreement for The Grove, a 1,277‑acre mixed‑use master plan presented by developer GSM Capital, with two minor textual revisions and one commissioner abstention.

The agreement sets a 40‑year framework for buildout and governance of the site and lays out a mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses that staff and the applicant say will be implemented in phases. Patrick Brooks, vice president of GSM Capital, told the board the developer has received a conditional “will‑serve” letter from Clayton County Water Authority and that the project team has reduced multifamily unit counts and added a 10% cap on single family rentals since the March rezoning approval. “We received a conditional will serve letter from Clayton County Water Authority,” Brooks said during his presentation.

The Grove matters because of its scale and the services, infrastructure and environmental protections it will require. Staff described the development as including nearly 2,500 single‑family homes, about 2,760 multifamily units, roughly 670,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, about 1.3 million square feet of office and institutional space, a 180‑room hotel, more than 150 acres of open space, eight miles of trails, multiple parks and a donated seven‑acre site reserved for a future public safety complex that county and developer say will serve police and fire operations.

County staff emphasized that the development agreement governs land‑use, phasing, design standards and an internal master plan committee but does not itself create utility service contracts. “The agreement does not and cannot bind either authority,” staff said, referring to the Clayton County Water Authority and Henry County Water Authority. Clayton County Water Authority CEO Bernard Franks, who attended the meeting, told the board his agency has been engaged on water and sewer feasibility and noted stormwater and water‑quality protections are a priority: “We do have, a measure concern as the gentleman mentioned about stormwater,” he said.

During the public hearing, neighbors and a water‑management professional urged caution on water quality and stormwater controls. A resident, Carl Conbrane, described himself as a Georgia‑certified water, wastewater and stormwater operator and said the board should prioritize water quality protections. The county’s presentation notes the applicant provided a will‑serve letter but that a separate servicing agreement must be executed between the developer and the utility provider.

The board vote approved the development agreement with two staff‑proposed text changes: an added undisturbed vegetative buffer along Shoal Creek Reservoir (staff stated this as a 100‑foot buffer in the presentation) and the removal of a nonstandard legal clause. During the public discussion Clayton County’s representative later referenced a 150‑foot buffer during remarks, a difference staff said would be addressed through coordination with the water authority and in the utility servicing agreement. The county manager and staff said utility and stormwater service agreements are separate and remain subject to each utility’s independent approval processes.

Commissioners said they reviewed the agreement with multiple county attorneys and planning staff over several months. Several commissioners and staff described the development agreement as the document that will guide design, phasing and standards for the site; it will not itself substitute for later utility, permitting or construction approvals. The board approved the agreement; the motion carried and one commissioner abstained, citing remaining concerns about utility approvals that must be finalized by the water authority.

What’s next: if Clayton County Water Authority or another utility ultimately declines to enter a service agreement, the developer and the county would need to resolve who will service the site before full infrastructure construction proceeds. The development agreement requires separate, standard permits and utility servicing agreements before construction and does not, by itself, authorize infrastructure hookups.