Archived story
As originally published
Demorest’s latest documented city notice put a proposed rezoning of 10.74 acres off Saluda Drive back before City Council on July 9, even though Habersham News had reported that council denied the same request after an April 7 hearing. The notice scheduled a public hearing and final-adoption consideration for McCain Investment Properties’ request to change the tract from Agricultural to R-2 for a 34-lot single-family subdivision. It does not say whether that July consideration produced a vote or any other disposition.
The unanswered zoning decision matters because it would determine whether the Saluda Drive tract can leave its agricultural designation for the R-2 classification the applicant sought. The proposal describes 34 detached homes behind the existing Hancock Meadows development, a scale that would affect nearby residents’ concerns about growth and access. But the zoning request is not an approval to build: engineering, permitting and subdivision review would still be separate steps, and no material here establishes that the homes have been approved or built.
Council first scheduled a March 3 public hearing on the proposal, with final-adoption consideration then listed for April 7. The April 7 minutes confirm that a public hearing opened on the rezoning request, and reporting from Now Georgia and Habersham News described the applicant’s case and residents’ participation that night. Habersham News subsequently reported that council denied the rezoning. The later July 9 city notice, however, scheduled another hearing and final-adoption consideration, leaving the public sequence difficult to reconcile without a city vote record or ordinance.
McCain Investment Properties, represented at the April hearing by attorney Matt Benson, argued that the development fit the city’s comprehensive plan and would contain single-family homes rather than townhomes, condominiums or apartments, according to Now Georgia. City Manager Mark Musselwhite said the proposal was consistent with adjacent land uses and city housing objectives, that report said. Habersham News reported that residents countered with concerns about stormwater runoff, steep terrain, traffic, erosion, neighborhood-road access and the loss of agricultural land; former Mayor Rick Austin and resident Jim Butterworth were among those identified as opponents.
Several facts should not be conflated. The 34-lot development remains a proposal in the material described here, and the July notice establishes only that council consideration was scheduled. Habersham News reported an April denial after public opposition, but the cited April minutes excerpt records the hearing’s opening rather than a denial. Nor does the later notice confirm that R-2 zoning took effect, that the request was revived or tabled, or that any follow-on development approval was granted. R-2 is identified in the hearing materials as multi-family residential, while the application itself proposes detached single-family lots.
The concrete next public step is a city record showing what happened after the July 9 hearing and final-adoption consideration—such as meeting minutes, a vote entry, an ordinance or a notice of another proceeding. Until that record appears, residents cannot tell from these materials whether council left the tract agricultural, approved an R-2 change, denied it again, or took another procedural path. The central decision, and any consequent path toward a subdivision, therefore remains undecided in the documented public chronology.