Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council denies Eastwood Homes’ Anderson Landing rezoning after residents cite stormwater and buffer concerns

City Council of McDonough · July 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment from Mountain Brook Village residents and technical review, council denied the Eastwood Homes Anderson Landing rezoning request for a 54.5‑acre, 89‑lot subdivision; opponents cited stormwater, buffer and traffic concerns and staff and the applicant disputed aspects of the outside review.

The council voted to deny Eastwood Homes’ rezoning application for Anderson Landing, a request to rezone roughly 54.54 acres on Turner Church Road from R‑200 to R‑75 for an 89‑lot subdivision.

Staff recommended approval with numerous engineering and timing conditions intended to protect downstream properties and ensure appropriate stormwater, road and utility work. The developer and their engineer said the proposed site plan lowers downstream runoff compared with the undeveloped condition and described traffic and stormwater steps they would take. The applicant’s representatives argued the proposal is lower density than some nearby developments and that engineered detention and green infrastructure will control flows.

But many adjacent residents—speakers from Mountain Brook Village and others—urged denial, saying the project would worsen longstanding flooding and stormwater problems, erode trust in the review process, and encroach on neighborhood buffers. Several residents said they expected more protection for the neighborhood, including wider undisturbed buffers than proposed. A petition and multiple speakers were presented at the public hearing.

After repeated exchanges and a detailed staff review of a third‑party planner’s recommendations, the council voted on a motion to deny the rezoning. The final tally recorded four votes in favor of denial and three opposed; the motion carried.

What’s next: Council denied the rezoning request; staff will reflect the vote in the minutes and the developer may revise and reapply, withdraw the application, or pursue other appeals as allowed under city and state rules.