Rivergreen developer seeks zoning change to replace 110 single‑family lots with 95 townhomes in pods J1 and J2

An applicant asked the City of Canton on Feb. 6 to amend Rivergreen’s zoning conditions and obtain a conditional use permit to allow townhomes in pods J1 and J2, replacing an original approval for single‑family detached lots. The council opened a public hearing, took comment from the applicant and neighborhood residents, and then closed the hearing; no final vote was taken.

Planning staff described the request as a zoning condition amendment plus a conditional‑use permit to change the previously approved housing type. Michelle Horstemeyer, representing the JW Collection (the applicant), described the revised layout: the current plan requests 95 attached townhome units and a small number of single‑family lots to replace 110 single‑family detached lots that were originally approved in that portion of Rivergreen. Horstemeyer said the revised layout preserves about 46% open space in the pod and that the developer will provide HOA covenants addressing rentals and maintenance. She said parking concerns identified at a public input meeting prompted inclusion of roughly 40 additional parking spaces on the plan.

Multiple Rivergreen residents opposed the amendment. Bernie Palcisco and Laurie Nichols said the neighborhood is a master‑planned community that was sold on a progression from smaller homes at the entrance to larger homes in the rear; they said homeowners purchased and invested based on the original plan and that townhomes are out of character in the affected area. Nichols also noted the parcel’s difficult topography and said that topography previously discouraged other developers from proceeding.

Residents raised several specific concerns: the change could affect property values for nearby single‑family homes; parking is inadequate for a higher‑density product; and the historical promise of single‑family detached homes shaped earlier buyer decisions. One resident noted townhomes proposed to sell in the high‑$600,000s while other nearby homes were marketed in the high‑$400,000s, and asked for clarity on market segmentation and neighborhood compatibility.

The applicant said the townhomes would be marketed as “owners‑on‑main” products and argued they could raise overall neighborhood values; she added the proposal would keep more open space than the original plan in some areas and would reduce the extent of clearing compared with the earlier concept. Planning staff confirmed the amended request would result in nine fewer units than the original 110‑unit approval for the two pods.

The council closed the public hearing and asked staff to include neighborhood comments in the action packet. No vote was taken at the hearing; the matter will return to council for action (scheduling not specified in the hearing).