Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer withdraws Mulberry Grove rezoning after residents cite well, traffic and farmland concerns
Summary
Following extensive public comment and a petition from neighbors, the applicant for a 12‑lot subdivision on Mulberry Grove Road asked to withdraw the rezoning application; residents had cited private well depth, narrow roads and loss of farmland.
After more than an hour of public comment on June 8, the applicant for Case 26‑ZMA366 — a request to rezone roughly 29.4 acres on Mulberry Grove Road from agricultural (A‑1) to R‑2 residential for a 12‑lot subdivision — told the board his client asked to withdraw the application.
Multiple neighbors from Districts 3, 4 and 6 described long histories on the land and specific infrastructure concerns. Andrew Hartless (District 4) said he "strongly oppose[d] the 12 house subdivision on Mulberry Grove Road," citing conflicts with local hunting land. Bobby Crews (District 3) noted groundwater vulnerability, saying his mother’s older well had been deepened from an older near‑surface well to a new well that required drilling 300+ feet and that he later had to drill to 425 feet for reserve water.
Residents also raised traffic and safety concerns on the narrow, partially unpaved road near Deacon Mulberry Grove Baptist Church and argued that adding 12 homes (an estimated 24 additional daily vehicles) would alter the rural character. Petition organizers told the board signers came from across districts and urged denial.
Following the public comments, applicant representative Michael Gowin said his client asked to pull the rezoning request, citing the water concerns raised by residents.
Why it matters: Neighbors documented specific water‑supply risks and road‑safety concerns and persuaded the applicant to withdraw rather than pursue the rezoning through the planning process. The withdrawal forestalls formal board action on the rezoning but does not preclude future applications.
Next steps: Because the applicant withdrew the case, the board took no further action on Case 26‑ZMA366 at the June 8 meeting. Residents and supervisors said they will remain vigilant for future proposals affecting Mulberry Grove Road.
Ending: The applicant’s withdrawal followed sustained community opposition focused on groundwater and safety; the board recorded the withdrawal in the meeting minutes.
