Meriwether County officials, city and developers discuss proposed Greenville annexation and 311‑unit plan

Meriwether County commissioners, Greenville city representatives and the property developers met March 23 for an informational discussion about a potential annexation and a conceptual residential project totaling about 311 units.

Dina Ingram, the city attorney for Greenville, told the meeting that "an application was received or a petition was submitted by the developer on December 1" but that it was subsequently withdrawn on Dec. 18. "So right now, we do not have a pending application for annexation for the city," Ingram said, and she outlined the statutory sequence that would follow a new filing: the city would send required notice to the county, which would then have 30 days to object.

The nut of the discussion centered on the developers' conceptual plan and whether infrastructure, public safety and tax revenues would support it. Richard Ferri of Brent Holdings, who introduced himself as a property owner and developer, described the concept as "81 single family homes" adjacent to a townhome section of about "230 units" — a roughly 311‑unit development — and said multiple access points would connect to Gate Connector and Highway 109 Spur. Ferri emphasized the plan was conceptual and that no builder, elevations or final applications had been selected.

Commissioners and residents questioned whether the city and regional utilities could supply water and sewer service at the scale proposed. City and county participants noted an existing 6‑inch gravity sewer line through the property and discussed a municipal water purchase contract with LaGrange that is up for renewal June 30. County speakers urged financial and infrastructure studies, warning that a largely residential proposal might not generate enough tax revenue to cover added service costs including schools, roads and fire protection. One commissioner urged a fiscal analysis before any refiling, saying the county should avoid taking on expenses that city taxpayers ultimately must bear.

Developers said they expect to install required on‑site infrastructure (water mains, sewer, roads) and to turn those systems over to the city after construction. Ferri stated that typical practice is to phase large projects and that the single‑family portion would likely be developed in take‑down phases by a single builder; the townhome market could be handled differently.

Speakers also debated local context: several attendees described Greenville as a small county seat with limited rooftops to support downtown businesses, and some participants argued that adding housing could help revitalize the downtown tax base. Others countered that prior developments had not reliably attracted commercial growth and cautioned against assuming housing would automatically produce the desired commercial investment.

Throughout the meeting officials repeatedly noted the procedural status: because the application had been withdrawn, the conversation was speculative and intended to surface concerns and questions in advance of any formal filing. Ingram reiterated the notice steps and said the county would have a period to evaluate and, if warranted, object to a future application.

The meeting closed with a brief motion and the chair announced an executive session on litigation and state tax matters. No vote on annexation or the project was recorded; participants said next steps would be driven by whether and when the developers submit a formal application to Greenville city council.