Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After hours of testimony, Cherokee commissioners deny RD3 rezoning for Pea Ridge development
Summary
Following an extended public hearing with strong neighborhood opposition, the board denied a request to rezone ~69 acres in the Pea Ridge area to RD3 for a proposed ~188‑lot subdivision; commissioners expressed concerns about density, traffic near schools and neighborhood character; the motion to deny passed 3–1.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners on April 19 denied a developer’s request to rezone roughly 69 acres in the Pea Ridge area from R40 to RD3 after an extended public hearing and a lengthy deliberation.
Planning staff described the proposal as a rezoning with three concurrent variances: reduce minimum lot width from 60 to 50 feet, reduce RD3 alley access from 30% to 21.27% and allow civic spaces with less than 40% street frontage. The developer’s revised plan proposed about 188 lots (approximately 2.98 dwelling units per acre under the RD3 standard) and included conditions such as sidewalks and streetlights along Pea Ridge Road, retention of a future access reserve and a proffer of $3,000 per lot toward roadway improvements as one funding option. Staff presented two options for board consideration: a development agreement to time road improvements or a per‑permit/per‑lot contribution approach.
Dozens of residents — including long‑time Pea Ridge residents and community representatives — opposed the rezoning at the public hearing, citing increased traffic near Teasley Middle School and the new high school, drainage and stormwater concerns on steep slopes, impacts to the historic Pea Ridge community and fears of displacement and rising taxes. Ursula Cox called the plan “disguising the true impact of this development,” saying the project would generate significant daily vehicle trips and change neighborhood character. Other speakers urged preservation of one‑unit‑per‑acre patterns (R40) or sought a lower intermediate density.
Developer Vincent Chambers and his team said the property had been on the market for years at R40 and that RD3 was a workable transition to the adjacent city‑zoned mixed‑use area; the developer offered site‑plan revisions and proffers including contributions for roadway improvements and school mitigation. The developer said the design preserved green areas, proposed sidewalks, and would make sewer available to a community center.
During deliberations several commissioners said they were uncomfortable with the proposed density for this particular site, noting the proximity to schools and the traditional character of Pea Ridge; some suggested R‑20 or other alternatives but the developer said such compromises would not be workable. Commissioner Carter moved to deny the rezoning. The motion passed 3–1 (three ayes to deny, chair recorded a nay), and the rezoning request was denied.
The board’s denial leaves the property at its current R40 zoning; commissioners said they do not have an immediate alternative they could impose that would be certain to meet the developer’s economic needs while addressing neighbors’ concerns. The denial may prompt the developer to revise plans or consider legal options; neither the developer nor the county announced a follow‑up schedule.
