Spring Hill board OKs 1-year extension for Spring Hill Commerce Center on first reading amid traffic, water and airport debate

The Spring Hill Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved on first reading a one-year extension of zoning approval for the Spring Hill Commerce Center plan development, a roughly 499.7-acre proposal, after hours of public comment and a lengthy presentation from the developer and consultants.

The extension — Ordinance 25-09 — passed on first reading by voice vote, recorded in the minutes as passing 8-0. The measure extends the developer’s existing plan development approval by one calendar year to Jan. 3, 2027, giving the applicant additional time to secure financing, update traffic studies and finalize utility agreements.

The extension matters because the project ties into large transportation and utility changes across north Spring Hill and could reshape development east of I-65. Supporters say the plan will bring jobs, tax revenue and infrastructure investments; opponents among nearby residents warned the project will overload small country roads if off-site improvements are not completed before major build-out.

Developer and project scope

Phil Paston, representing the applicant, told the board the company pursued federal grant funding for a widened Jim Warren Road overpass and spent consulting money preparing the application. "We wasted, I hate to use that word, but as a developer and a businessman, we wasted over a year trying to accomplish that," Paston said, describing a change in grant criteria that sidelined the application. He said the company plans to privately fund and build the bridge if federal money is not secured and that the bridge design is roughly 30 percent complete.

Paston and Andrew Burick, general counsel for the Richmond Company, described commitments the developer has offered in negotiations with the city, including reserving roughly 284 acres for an airport zoning district within the PD amendment, donating a five-acre parcel for an emergency response facility and negotiating limits on the developer’s ability to assign the development agreement to an unknown third party.

Staff and consultant findings

Planning staff explained the extension would "allow the applicant one more year to take necessary action to lock in that approval and essentially vest the project in accordance with state law and local regulations," and that the plan development approval otherwise would expire in January 2026.

Traffic consultants retained by the applicant, Skipper Consulting, said Port Royal and a Jim Warren Parkway connection would be the primary access and that Lee/Crafton/Duplex would serve as a secondary route. Consultant Scott Cotheron reported updated March traffic counts on Duplex Road of roughly 3,300 vehicles per day and noted a two-lane roadway of that type can have a theoretical capacity of about 15,000–16,000 vehicles per day under ideal conditions. He cautioned, however, that Duplex Road lacks shoulders and has vertical curves and sight-distance issues that would require safety improvements if traffic were to increase substantially.

Public comments and neighborhood concerns

Several nearby residents spoke against the extension at public comment and at the item, saying local roads — especially Lee Road, Crafton Road and Duplex Road — are not built for the volume the Commerce Center could generate. "The road Lee Road and Crafton Road are not built for what's they're anticipating traffic," resident John Lee said, adding that planned improvements on Duplex Road were pushed to phase three in the developer’s phasing plan.

Other residents emphasized safety and fiscal concerns. Richard Spunt cited an estimate in staff materials that widening and replacing Jim Warren over I-65 and other required improvements could cost the city tens of millions of dollars, and he said a proposed $1.5 million cap on matching grants from the developer would leave taxpayers to cover the balance. Resident John Neil and others objected to using neighborhood streets as project ingress and egress and asked the board to condition approval on needed infrastructure work.

Financial, water and permitting details

City staff and the developer discussed details of the project’s financial plan. Counsel Andrew Burick described a previously approved tax increment financing (TIF) arrangement that would reimburse developer infrastructure costs up to roughly $12.5 million in present-value terms, subject to TIF terms and the industrial development board approval. The city’s memo and the developer’s presentations cited larger estimated infrastructure needs: Murray County water improvements in the developer’s materials were described as roughly $12.5–13 million; an estimated cost to widen the Jim Warren overpass was described around $22 million; and a total rough infrastructure estimate presented for worst-case full build-out approached higher tens of millions (materials cited an estimate of about $72.6 million to fully implement all original infrastructure concepts).

Paston said the project will take time to build — "it's a big project, and it takes a lot of different things to fall in place" — and that the developer has capital and prospective tenants lined up but needs assurances about timing and infrastructure to secure commitments. He told the board the company "has the capital ready to be deployed" and expressed willingness to contribute money toward safety improvements; staff and the applicant discussed a proposed $1.5 million developer contribution toward Duplex Road safety improvements as a match for a possible grant.

Board discussion and staff direction

Aldermen repeatedly pressed the developer and staff for specifics: when improvements would be made, what portions of roads would require right-of-way acquisition, and how much traffic the project would add to secondary routes. Several board members said they want traffic and phasing language clarified in the development agreement so later phases cannot proceed without triggers tied to completed improvements.

Staff said negotiations are ongoing and asked the board for direction on several technical points including whether certain off-site work should be a city obligation, how to phase the Jim Warren overpass replacement, and whether a traffic signal at Port Royal and Jim Warren should be funded by the city or the developer. The board directed staff and the applicant to continue technical coordination: traffic engineers from both sides should meet to refine the traffic study and agree on mitigation and phasing; staff should prepare a comparison chart on what base I-2 zoning would allow versus the proposed PD amendment; and staff should return with recommended contract language and exhibit changes for the development agreement ahead of the next voting meeting.

Vote and next steps

Vice Mayor Linville moved and Alderman Murray seconded the motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance 25-09 extending PDP 13-23-2022 (approximately 499.68 acres) by one year through Jan. 3, 2027. The motion passed on first reading as recorded in the minutes, 8-0. The developer and staff will continue negotiations on a revised development agreement and updated traffic analyses; Planning staff told the board revised language and exhibits would be prepared for the board's May 19 voting meeting.

Why this matters

If the plan development amendment ultimately is adopted, the Commerce Center would rezone and develop parcels east of I‑65 at a scale the city’s staff and the developer say can attract large employers and generate substantial tax and sales revenue. Opponents say that unless off-site road and sight‑distance improvements are completed in tandem with early phases, the project will shift traffic and safety burdens onto narrow county roads that currently lack shoulders or pedestrian accommodations.

The board’s action on May 5 preserves the developer’s entitlement for another year while leaving open significant policy and contractual choices to be resolved in the coming weeks: the city and developer must still settle who funds specific off-site improvements, how phases are triggered, the exact role of Murray County Water District service, and the scope of the airport zoning provisions that are being proposed in the PD amendment. Second reading and final action on the extension and the amended development agreement are scheduled for the board’s May 19 voting meeting.