Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Mccall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer withdraws proposed R‑5 rezoning for McCall Road after strong neighborhood opposition
Summary
GW Investments withdrew a request to rezone roughly 136 acres on McCall Road to R‑5 (about 303 proposed homes) after residents raised concerns about traffic, flooding and school capacity; applicant cited ordinance standards and buffer commitments but chose to withdraw the application.
The developer behind a proposed 303‑unit subdivision on McCall Road withdrew its rezoning request after more than an hour of public comment and detailed questioning from commissioners.
John Giordano, agent for GW Investments, presented an amended plan that removed townhomes and reduced the proposal to 303 single‑family lots while increasing open space to 47.4 acres (about 57% of the net area). Giordano said the project was designed to meet the county's new R‑5 standards and to "far exceed" perimeter buffers and open‑space requirements. The planning staff noted the site has water and sewer availability but acknowledged the proposal represented a substantial density increase for the area.
Residents of the adjacent Timbergate neighborhood urged the commission to deny the rezoning, citing traffic, flooding and school capacity. Nell Gillespie, a Timbergate Lane resident, said: "Hurricane Debbie gave us 13 and 0.5 inches of rain in our neighborhood... I'm not sure if the 1% flood event that the developer said would handle that amount of water will hold." Multiple speakers described the Bluejay/McCall intersection as overloaded and cited county planning documents showing steep traffic growth on McCall Road.
Commission discussion repeatedly returned to timing and cumulative impacts. One commissioner asked who would pay for off‑site water and sewer extensions; planning staff and project representatives said the developer would be responsible for required extensions and cost‑recovery fees. After public comment and board members' concerns about infrastructure timing, the property owner, Gary Wigan, said he would withdraw the application. "I request to withdraw it," Wigan said during the meeting.
The clerk recorded the item as withdrawn and the board returned to other business. Staff and residents said they would continue to coordinate if and when the applicant returns with a revised proposal.
