Planning commission continues hearing on Serenity Lake rezoning after water, lot-size and fire-safety questions

The Hudson County Planning Commission continued the rezoning hearing for REZ202501, a request from 10 Acres Lake LLC (branded in the record as Serenity Lake) to rezone about 266.36 acres on Old Alabama Road and Williams Road from AR (agricultural-residential) to PM (planned master) for a 24-lot residential subdivision with a clubhouse, storage and RV parking.

Commissioners said they did not have enough information on water service, lot size and fire suppression to recommend approval and voted to continue the hearing to a future meeting. A motion to continue passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The proposal would convert a large agricultural parcel near Thomaston into a gated-style subdivision and could change development patterns, public infrastructure needs and tax revenues for Upson County. Neighbors and owners raised questions about floodplain mapping, septic and well systems, and the cost and governance of extending county water.

Developer presentation and claims Dan Springetti, appearing for the ownership/developer team, described the property as "a property of splendor" and said the group envisions a destination-style, low-density residential community with amenities, hiking, kayaking and a clubhouse. Springetti told the commission the team expects about $1,000,000 per year in property tax revenue from the 24 homes under a conservative estimate and that local contractors have already been hired for initial engineering and soil testing.

Owner and builder representatives said they had spent substantial sums on engineering and due diligence. Jim Faulkner, who said he represents the ownership group, said the owners purchased the land after being told by county staff that a subdivision was possible under current zoning and that they had spent "well over $100,000 just in engineering cost preparing for today." Daniel White and other local builders said they were being vetted to build on the site.

Applicant technical points The applicant reported a traffic count during morning and evening peak hours of about 26 vehicles (roughly one vehicle every five minutes). The team also said it retained a hydrologist who concluded two community wells could serve the subdivision and that, based on initial bids and estimates gathered by the applicant, running county water from the existing line at Turkey Creek to the subdivision entrance could cost on the order of $1,250,000 to $1,250,000. Springetti said the ownership group was "definitely open to participating financially" but that they did not expect to pay the entire cost to bring county water the full distance.

Questions and opposition from neighbors Multiple nearby residents raised concerns during public comment. Janice Boles said portions of the site lie in FEMA Zone A and noted the insurance and flooding risks tied to building in that better-known floodplain designation, emphasizing that Zone A represents a 100-year floodplain and a roughly 26% chance of flooding over a 30-year mortgage period. Jessica Meyer, whose property adjoins the site, told the commission she believes portions of the project site and particular lots are within mapped floodplain areas and urged the commission to verify current FEMA mapping.

Other neighbors raised the following concerns: whether proposed lot sizes (some presented as one-acre lots) provide adequate space for a primary and replacement septic field and a well separation, proximity of homes and property lines that could limit future replacement septic or well placement, road and construction traffic on Old Alabama and Rolling Road, odors and land‑use compatibility near agricultural operations, and whether a small, private clubhouse retail amenity that the applicant described as for residents only would actually remain private.

Public-safety and regulatory issues Commissioners and staff asked for clear answers from the applicant and outside agencies on these points: - Whether county water will be extended and, if so, who will pay for construction vs. future tap‑in fees and reimbursements; commissioners noted the planning commission cannot commit county funds and that any county participation must be decided by the Board of Commissioners. - Whether the health department will permit the proposed density and lot layout using septic systems; staff and several commissioners emphasized the requirement for a replacement septic field on each lot and noted separation distances between wells and septic infrastructure. - Fire protection: if the subdivision uses wells or a community well system, the state fire marshal and local fire department could require a reserve tank or dry hydrants for fire suppression. Commission members flagged sprinkler requirements for the proposed 10,000‑square‑foot clubhouse. - Floodplain and hydrology: staff reminded speakers that any building in a floodplain must meet FEMA and state requirements; the applicant said its hydrologist had provided a report and the ownership team provided engineering documents for the existing dam on the property.

Commission response and direction Commissioners said the two principal obstacles to a recommendation at this time were clarity on water (county extension vs. community wells or individual wells) and minimum lot size to ensure septic and well separation and adequate emergency access. One commissioner said the lot-size question likely requires at least two-acre lots for practical septic and well setbacks; others said county water could ease some septic/separation constraints but would not remove the need for replacement septic fields. Commissioners asked the applicant to present a definitive proposal that specifies: preferred water approach, a clear lot-size map, a description and location of any storage/warehouse facilities and berms to screen them, precise clubhouse footprint (applicant identified a 10,000-square-foot clubhouse in the presentation), and the engineering report conclusions.

Outcome and next steps The planning commission voted to continue the public hearing to a future meeting after the applicant supplies the requested technical information and after staff confirms what outside agencies (health department, state fire marshal, county water department) will require. The continuation vote was unanimous. The commission advised the applicant to secure cost information, to document any county discussions about water participation and reimbursement mechanisms, and to coordinate with fire and health authorities before rehearing.

Ending: The commission left the record open for additional technical submittals and indicated it will revisit the rezoning after staff and applicant responses are available and the commission has had a chance to review proposed lot sizes, water and fire-safety plans.