Rezoning to expand Autumn Crest tabled after residents raise traffic and safety concerns

Scott Shoemaker, representing developer LFP LLC, asked the Madison County Board of Supervisors to rezone two adjacent tracts from SU-1 and R-1 to R-2 to expand the Autumn Crest subdivision. Shoemaker told the board the change would align the parcels with surrounding R-2 and PUD development and cited Madison County Zoning Ordinance section 806.3 as the governing standard. "My name is Scott Shoemaker, and I'm here representing the development company LFP LLC in regards to the petition we filed in order to rezone property," he said during the public hearing.

Shoemaker said prior rezonings since the county's 2019 comprehensive plan and a Bear Creek letter confirming water and sewer availability support the developer's claim that the neighborhood's character has changed and that there is public need. He presented maps and a timeline of four nearby parcels rezoned since 2019 and shared market data showing reduced inventory and shorter days on market in nearby subdivisions. He described a preliminary plat for roughly 87 lots in the proposed section and said house sizes would generally match existing Autumn Crest construction.

Multiple Autumn Crest residents opposed the expansion during public comment, focusing on traffic, safety and disclosure. Buyer Amy Odom said she purchased in 2025 for her family's small-cul-de-sac lifestyle and warned that a single entrance and increased construction traffic would threaten her 5-year-old child's safety: "My concerns are for my 5 year old child as there will be so much more traffic in and out." Megan Schultz, who lives about four houses from the entrance, raised similar concerns about traffic, construction debris and the neighborhood's poor maintenance where no functioning HOA exists.

Resident Jason Peterson pointed to the proposed access location and warned the new road would go under a major transition pole, calling that a safety issue. "Our property value ... is going to go down," he said, noting the developer's drawing showed about 87 houses and predicting significantly more daily vehicle trips past his home.

Shoemaker responded that homeowners had signed a consent for modification of the subdivision plat and protective covenants at closing and that disclosures about potential expansion were part of the sales contract for some original buyers. An original homeowner, Elaine Saxton, said she and other original buyers received those disclosures but suggested later purchasers may not have.

Board members debated options and conditions. Several supervisors and staff said rezoning and preliminary plat approvals are separate processes; rezoning does not approve specific plat details. Supervisor questions focused on whether the board should require a traffic study, utility approval and county engineer review before acting. Committee member Speaker 8 moved — and Speaker 9 seconded — to table both petitions until the developer provides a traffic study, proof of Entergy approval for use of the power-line easement for the proposed access, and comments from the county engineer. The board voted by voice to table both petitions.

The hearing was closed and the board set the next meeting for May 7. No rezoning decision was made; both petitions remain tabled pending the conditions the board specified.