Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homewood Village redevelopment proposal tabled after hours of neighborhood testimony
Summary
Developers presented a phased plan to redevelop Homewood Village (2415 Jefferson Road) with housing, retail and public space; neighbors protested scale, parking, traffic and sewer capacity. After lengthy discussion, the commission voted to table the item for one cycle to allow more review and talks with staff and the developer.
A mixed‑use redevelopment plan for Homewood Village at 2415 Jefferson Road drew heavy turnout and divided the Athens‑Clarke County commission on Dec. 2, leading commissioners to table the proposal for one cycle.
The developer’s representative, Jack Murphy of Carter, described a phased approach: short‑term improvements to existing retail and parking (phase 1a), new apartments, townhouse buffers, a modest amphitheater and planned phase 2 work that will return for additional public review. Murphy emphasized traffic studies and shared parking strategies, saying the proposed amphitheater “is not a concert venue. So there's no stage, there's no roof, there's no power for amplified shows.”
About three dozen residents and business owners spoke. Supporters said the center needs reinvestment to attract quality retail and housing. Opponents repeatedly stressed the project’s scale — two five‑story apartment buildings in close proximity to single‑family neighborhoods — along with traffic, stormwater, and sewer‑capacity concerns. Resident Roger Hilton framed the density argument numerically, warning that the rezoning could “potentially add up to 650 people” to the parcel; Connection Church pastor Liam Hardy (in a separate item) and others disputed comparable attendance numbers in different contexts.
Commissioners split over whether to proceed. Some said the site’s configuration and underperforming retail argued for redevelopment; others said unanswered technical questions — especially sewage capacity, stormwater buffers and the binding nature of later phases — warranted delay. Commissioner Link moved to table the matter for a cycle; Commissioner Myers seconded the substitute motion. After a round‑robin of votes the commission agreed to hold the item for additional staff review and further conversations between the developer and neighbors.
Next steps: The item will return at the next voting cycle with additional analysis from planning, transportation and utilities staff, and the developer was invited to work with neighbors on refinements ahead of a subsequent hearing.
