Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss sale of 80 lots in Crosswind subdivision; urge inspection and oversight
Summary
Board members discussed a national developer’s purchase of 80 lots in the Crosswind/Cedar Lane area and expressed concerns about density, construction quality and long-term impacts of build-to-rent or assembly-line development. The board asked community development inspectors to review exemplar homes the developer proposes to use.
Rankin County supervisors reviewed a transaction in which a national developer purchased 80 lots in a longstanding Crosswind subdivision (Cedar Lane area) and debated whether the county should require added oversight of materials and construction quality.
Supervisors said the developer has a history of large-scale, factory-style production and in some markets controls supply chains. Board members said they want county inspectors to visit completed homes elsewhere in the region that the developer cites as models so inspectors can verify materials and construction standards before large-scale construction begins locally.
Participants discussed zoning and minimum standards: the subdivision is in an R-1C zoning classification that allows smaller lot sizes and relatively higher density. Board members noted the developer proposes starter homes with heated/cooled area around 1,300 square feet (plus attached two-car garages that increase under-roof area), and they expressed concern that concentrating 80 closely spaced starter homes could produce nuisance properties if construction quality or long-term maintenance is poor.
Supervisors said the county has tightened zoning and regulation in recent years to discourage build-to-rent schemes unless the developer follows specific zoning approvals and additional conditions. Several supervisors asked community development staff to inspect a sample home the developer has constructed in the metro area and to report back to the board with findings; staff agreed to do so.
No formal action or ordinance change was taken at the meeting; the discussion resulted in direction for staff inspections and closer permitting oversight.
