Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Dotsonville topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks Dotsonville Road rezoning; commissioners vote down AG→R1 request
Summary
A developer asked Montgomery County commissioners to rezone a Dotsonville Road parcel from agricultural to single-family residential to build an affordable suburban community; neighbors and one commissioner raised safety and rural-character concerns and the board voted 4–17 to deny the rezoning.
Gary Chiara, speaking as a representative for the Dotsonville Road property, presented CZ 21 20 25 on Feb. 9, asking the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners to rezone the site from AG to R1 to allow an affordable suburban housing development with sidewalks. "We are requesting a rezone from AG ... Our intent is develop an affordable suburban housing community with sidewalks," Chiara said, outlining a three-phase plan that adds an entrance and a turning lane, and noting a planned sewer extension and projected water capacity by June 2026.
Chiara said a traffic study found the property would operate "with an acceptable level of service," and that the nearby Freedom Elementary — expected to open in 2026 — should relieve pressure on existing schools. He gave a projected build timeline with the first house about January 2028 and final homes completed near 2030.
Opposition surfaced during debate. Commissioner Burkel, citing conversations with area residents and local road geometry, urged colleagues to reject the request, saying he had been "inundated with people asking me to to vote against this" and describing Dotsonville Road as a ‘‘very tricky road’’ and still an agricultural area. The board then voted; Commissioner Shelton moved approval and Commissioner Smith seconded. The clerk recorded 4 yeses and 17 noes, and the rezoning application failed.
The developer presentation emphasized preserved open space, detention ponds to minimize off-site stormwater discharge and coordination with utilities; opponents emphasized road safety, rural character and existing agricultural uses. The commission did not adopt any conditions or amendments that would approve the application.
The board did not set a new date for resubmission; next procedural steps would depend on whether the applicant seeks to revise the proposal and refile.
