Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After lengthy debate, board approves rezoning for 60-acre McMillan Road LLC project despite Hathaway Lake opposition
Summary
The Madison County Board of Supervisors approved rezoning about 60 acres from R-1 to R-1B for a McMillan Road LLC residential project after extensive public comment from Hathaway Lake neighbors.
A rezoning application from McMillan Road LLC (applicant represented by Blake Kress and attorney Neil Bryant) sought to rezone about 60 acres north of Hathaway Lake and adjacent to Briscoe Street from R-1 to R-1B to permit a denser residential development.
Several Hathaway Lake and Briscoe Street residents opposed the rezoning. Residents said the email outreach from the applicant was insufficient, that the homeowners’ association (HOA) had no functioning board at the moment, and that a 40-foot buffer offered by the developer would not address privacy, visual or watershed concerns. One resident raised wildlife concerns and said there might be a bald eagle nest on the property. Opponents repeatedly emphasized reliance on current zoning and warned a rezoning would change the character of their neighborhood and threaten property values.
The applicant said he had offered a 40-foot buffer, that he had attempted outreach and was willing to place a buffer inside the development to avoid requiring Hathaway Lake HOA acceptance, and that engineering would address watershed and drainage questions. The applicant’s attorney noted the county’s procedures and urged the board to consider the rezoning application.
After lengthy testimony on both sides, a board member moved to approve the rezoning request. During discussion one board member argued the request matched the area’s growth pattern and that market data showed demand for new housing types and sizes. The board approved the rezoning; the transcript records a voice vote of “Aye” and the chair closed the public hearing and later set a follow-up date for July 10 (recorded in meeting sequence). The board noted that engineering, watershed, entrance and permitting questions remain subject to county review during subsequent planning steps.
Opponents said they would pursue further avenues available to them; the applicant will proceed to planning and engineering steps required to develop the property under the new zoning.
