Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Robertson County commission rejects Clarion Homes rezoning after extensive public comment
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with residents citing flooding, narrow roads and school impacts, the Robertson County Commission voted against a rezoning request for a 39.30-acre Clarion Homes development along Horseshoe Road; commissioners debated infrastructure, runoff and future growth impacts.
The Robertson County Board of Commissioners declined to approve a request from Clarion Homes to rezone about 39.30 acres on Horseshoe Road from AG-2 to R-30 following a public hearing with more than a dozen residents presenting for and against the project. The developer and project designer urged the commission to approve the rezoning, saying the plan fits the county's 2040 growth plan and that proposed densities are lower than some expected; Andy Leith, the project's designer, told commissioners, "We are proposing under 1 unit per acre."
But neighbors said the county's roads, stormwater infrastructure and schools cannot absorb additional development right now. Nicole Taylor, a Callister Road resident, said the nearby road network cannot handle more heavy construction traffic and urged denial: "I'm asking that this be denied." Trenton Anderson said planned drainage shown on project drawings risks sending runoff into Honey Run Creek and flooding downstream properties, warning that "the additional water will cause flooding from the creek to advance further and cause considerable and costly damage."
Commissioners questioned whether Horseshoe Road and other local infrastructure would need expensive repairs and whether the development's stated buyer mix (the applicant said many buyers would be empty-nesters) would be realized. A motion to table the request for more information was put to a roll call and failed. On the subsequent vote to approve the rezoning the chair announced the motion failed; the clerk recorded the board's count as "Got 11, 4, and 12" and the chair noted that 13 votes were required to carry the measure. The commission therefore did not change the property's zoning at this meeting.
Supporters had argued the developer complied with planning requests, performed site surveys and proposed many lots at or above 0.75 acres; the designer emphasized soil mapping and that the firm expected to produce about 38 lots. Opponents repeatedly cited narrow road widths (14–16 feet in places), crumbling shoulders and downstream flooding incidents, and urged the commission to prioritize repairs and broader infrastructure planning before adding housing density. The commission did not set a new date for reconsideration during the meeting.
