Developer presents revised 'Greensburg Meadow' plan; neighbors cite airport safety, noise and traffic; council delays vote

Council members heard a public hearing May 26 on ordinance 2026‑08, a rezoning request to change roughly 31 acres at the northeast corner of Greensburg Road and Winning Way from R‑1 (single‑family) to PD (planned development) for the proposed Greensburg Meadow neighborhood.

Developer Greg Summers and representatives described a revised concept plan that they said responds to prior feedback: a boulevard entrance off Greensburg Road, relocated parks and open space so lots do not back onto Byron Drive, stronger buffering along I‑77, a deed‑restricted emergency access connection to Byron Drive and a larger open‑space allocation than required (developer stated 7.19 acres). The team said the PD process enables coordinated design, better connectivity and amenities and cited an expected build‑out of roughly 101 for‑sale homes with a total completed value the developer estimated at about $45 million to $61 million. "The promises we made to the residents, we will follow through with that," the developer said.

Residents who live near the site urged caution. David Johnson, a Byron Drive resident of more than 50 years, said the parcel is close to the airport runway and described past aircraft accidents as a reason to deny denser residential development. Neighbors also raised concerns about persistent noise from I‑77 and late‑night motorcycles, traffic impacts on Greensburg and Mayfair roads and effects on school capacity. "I can't imagine what those people would have to live with," said Lynn Ann Schleck, who lives near Mayfair Road, describing night‑time noise that she said regularly wakes her.

Developers and staff answered residents' questions. The developer said the site is not in a flight path or FAA‑restricted area and pointed to a traffic study reviewed by the city engineer. They offered to deed‑restrict the emergency access to prevent through traffic, install mounding and evergreen buffers along I‑77 and work with neighbors on rear fencing (developer said 8‑foot rear fences can be provided in rear yards where zoning allows). Administration staff summarized school‑enrollment trends and told council that district enrollment has been around 3,900–4,100 students in recent years; staff cautioned that adding 100 homes would still have some impact on busing and classroom capacity.

Council members pressed on infrastructure and design. Members asked whether a dedicated turn lane into the development or other intersection improvements could be required as part of conditional approval; the developer said they would be willing to add turn‑lane work and discussed using a residential TIF or RID to help fund corridor improvements. Several council members said the proposed density — about 3.3 units per acre, with lot sizes the developer described in the 6,000–9,000 square‑foot range — feels higher than what the area's long‑range plan and neighbors expect. "A 101 homes on 31 acres to me is the definition of overdevelopment," one council member said, asking whether a lower count such as 65–75 homes would better meet adjacency expectations.

No vote occurred at the hearing. Council member Noble closed the public hearing and said council cannot vote on the rezoning that night under council rules; the ordinance will return for final action at the next council meeting, after additional information and potential conditions are considered. The developer said staff would continue to refine responses to council and neighborhood concerns between meetings.

What happens next: The Greensburg Meadow rezoning (2026‑08) will be on the next council agenda for final vote. Council indicated it wants more detail about traffic mitigation, buffering, fence/variance approvals and the specific deed‑restriction language for the emergency access before making a final decision.