Commission approves annexation but denies GPD rezoning and phase‑1 plat for Markwood Preserve

The Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission voted July 20 to approve the city‑initiated annexation of roughly 221 acres associated with the Markwood Preserve project but denied the developer’s petition to rezone the full area to General Plan Development (GPD) and also denied approval of the phase‑1 preliminary plat.

Staff presented the master plan, which called for a mix of single‑family and townhome units (up to 843 total dwellings at full build‑out per materials), two commercial pods and roughly 51 acres of open space. The developer, Ready Land (Scott Holmes) with partner David Hansen, described design revisions since the May presentation, added guest parking and two dumpsters for phase‑1, and presented a sewer flow analysis and correspondence from the city capital projects director indicating the wastewater treatment plant has treatment capacity. The petitioner and engineering consultant said a targeted sewer line replacement and manhole improvements on a flat gravity segment would be required before later phases could build out, and that the work would be coordinated with the city.

More than a dozen neighbors and homeowners‑association representatives urged commissioners to reject or slow the plan, citing traffic impacts along Hargrove Road, concerns about school capacity, the need to purchase Mitchell Water service area and uncertainty about the cost and timing of required sewer upgrades. Several speakers said they were told in earlier years the spillway/adjacent lake land would remain protected and expressed alarm at any suggestion of future sale or development of open‑space parcels. Commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer cost estimates, binding commitments on off‑site infrastructure upgrades and legal assurances that infrastructure work would be completed before additional phases could proceed.

During the roll call the commission approved annexation (Ayes) but a motion to approve the GPD rezoning failed (majority No); a subsequent motion to approve the phase‑1 preliminary plat also failed. Commissioners who voted to deny cited an inability to verify the project’s financial and engineering commitments for sewer and water transfers, the scale of the proposed development, and public‑safety concerns tied to single primary access on major phases. Staff and the developer indicated they will return with additional engineering detail, cost estimates and legally binding commitments intended to address the commission’s concerns.