Residents press commissioners on wetlands, traffic as developer seeks rezoning for 221-acre Goshen Road project

Neil McKenzie, agent for the property owner, asked the Effingham County Board of Commissioners to rezone roughly 221.87 acres on Goshen Road from AR‑1 to R‑5 to allow a proposed residential development of up to 377 units.

McKenzie said the plan would leave about 35% of the site as open space, would locate detention ponds to discharge to the wetlands that feed Black Creek and proposed a 50‑foot vegetated buffer with a berm along the parcel’s south boundary adjacent to existing homes. He told the board the developer had a secondary emergency access under contract (address 665) that would be emergency‑only and said utility capacity for county water and sewer was expected to be available in 2027. McKenzie also outlined a fast‑track schedule that would put potential first homes in early 2027 if approvals and construction proceeded without delay.

Planning staff noted the parcel’s future land‑use designation is agricultural, and the planning board recommended approval with conditions: a 120‑unit cap until secondary emergency access easement and Goshen Road improvements are completed; a 50‑foot wide vegetated buffer with berm along the south property line; and no certificates of occupancy for more than 120 homes until the second access and roadway improvements are established.

Residents who live near the site strongly opposed the rezoning during the public hearing. Jill Banks, Barbara Crowder and other neighbors described persistent standing water and said recent storms produced 7–18 inches of rain that left yards and ditches saturated. They argued the property contains significant wetlands that appear to extend “railroad line to railroad line,” and raised concerns about where stormwater from new roads and retention ponds would be routed. Several speakers said Goshen Road and nearby corridors already face heavy truck traffic and congestion and questioned whether planned improvements and roundabouts would be completed in time to support 300+ new households.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on engineering and timeline questions — including minimum home sizes, open‑space calculations without wetlands, location of the proposed berm and the nature of the secondary access. McKenzie said lot sizes would be about 6,600 square feet, that the product and price point were not yet fixed because a builder was not selected, and that wetlands delineation and flood‑zone engineering would be conducted as part of the preliminary‑plat process if the rezoning was approved.

After extended discussion, a motion “to deny” the rezoning was made and seconded. The clerk recorded the vote dialogue (“All in favor? Aye. None opposed.”) and then stated, “The motion failed.” The transcript records the result as “motion failed” and the meeting proceeded; commissioners discussed moratorium timing and whether applications not yet final‑platted would be subject to forthcoming ordinance changes.

The public hearing highlighted the central concerns county officials must weigh when rezoning large tracts: wetlands and hydrology, phasing of roadway improvements and emergency access, the projected number of new vehicle trips on two‑lane roads, and whether preliminary engineering and utility capacity can be demonstrated before parcel‑level rezonings move forward.