The Pelham City Council recessed its Jan. 6 meeting for a public hearing on a request to rezone about 104 acres along Oak Mountain State Park Road from A1 (agricultural) and R1 (single-family residential) to RG (residential garden homes). The applicant, Randy Goggins of Pelham 157 LLC, proposed a development of roughly 225 homes with lot sizes from about 7,000 square feet to roughly an acre. The council recessed the meeting to hear public testimony; a vote on the ordinance is scheduled for a future meeting.

City staff and the developer told the council the rezoning request is intended to align the parcel with the city’s future land use plan. Andre Bittas, speaking for the city, summarized the applicant’s request: "He's requesting to rezone 2 parcels, approximately 104 total acres located at Highway 33 West of Pelham Oaks Elementary School and West of Oak Mountain State Park Road, from R1 and A1 to RG Residential Garden Homes." Randy Goggins described changes to the plan after earlier public input, saying the team "we've gone to a 100 foot buffer" along the State Park Road frontage and that houses would be pulled back from the roadway.

Why it matters: The site fronts Oak Mountain State Park Road near Pelham Oaks Elementary School and the city’s main recreational gateway. Residents and nearby property owners raised concerns about traffic, stormwater, visual impacts on the tree canopy and impacts on school capacity. The city and the developer said engineering and plan-review requirements will govern final design if the rezoning proceeds.

Traffic and infrastructure: The developer presented a traffic study that covered four intersections, including the two proposed access points and two signalized intersections north and south of the site. Charles Cochran, a traffic engineer with Saint Associates, said, "We're adding traffic to all all 4 of those intersections." He said the study recommended a southbound right-turn lane at the northern access and northbound left-turn lanes at each access; the study found the site did not warrant a new traffic signal. The council and residents discussed bicycle and pedestrian safety on State Park Road and the likelihood of additional turn lanes or other road changes if the project proceeds.

Stormwater and topography: Residents asked whether changes to the city's detention/retention standards during design would affect the project. The city’s development staff said new regulations would apply at the time grading plans and drainage studies are submitted; "when we see their grading plans, their drainage studies, and hydrology, then we'll look at that based on the current regulations we have," staff said. The developer said a detention pond is planned at the southern end of the property and that houses would not be placed in known flood areas.

Public comments and concerns: Dozens of residents spoke during the hearing. Jasmine Gagne said she opposed "houses on top of one another" near the park and asked how school capacity and lot counts would be affected. Residents cited concerns about clearing and visible impacts to the park entry canopy, with Marty Gilbert saying the roadway and canopy are "special" and urging the council to preserve the character of the corridor. Other speakers raised erosion and grading concerns given the site's varied topography, questioned whether the developer would clear timber, and asked whether the school system had been consulted; city staff said they had contacted the school system and would share the school district's enrollment-impact formulas.

Process and timeline: The council performed a first reading of Ordinance 135266 (the rezoning ordinance) on Jan. 6; a final vote was not taken. Council President Mercer recessed the meeting to hear testimony and later called the meeting back into order, saying the rezoning item "will come up on the agenda again at our next meeting, and we will conduct a vote at that particular meeting." The council’s next regular meeting was announced for Jan. 22.

What remains unresolved: The hearing record includes resident objections on traffic, stormwater, school impacts and visual character; the council did not make a decision on the rezoning at the Jan. 6 meeting. If the ordinance returns for a vote, the council will consider the first-reading ordinance text, traffic-mitigation commitments, buffer and landscaping details, and any conditions recommended by staff or the planning commission.

The council recessed the Jan. 6 meeting for the hearing and later returned to order; the rezoning ordinance had its first reading and is scheduled for a future vote.