Archived story
As originally published
Demorest’s last documented action on a proposed 34-home subdivision behind Hancock Meadows was a city notice setting a July 9 public hearing and final-adoption consideration for the Saluda Drive rezoning. The notice put McCain Investment Properties’ request to change 10.74 acres from Agricultural to R-2 back before City Council, but it does not say whether the council voted, delayed the matter or reached any other disposition.
That unanswered decision would determine whether the tract can leave its agricultural designation for the R-2 classification sought by the applicant. The application describes 34 detached single-family lots, yet the hearing materials identify R-2 as multi-family residential. A zoning change would not itself authorize construction: engineering, subdivision review and permits would remain separate, and no record here establishes that homes have been approved or built.
The city first scheduled a March 3 public hearing on the request, with final-adoption consideration listed for April 7. The April 7 council agenda again placed the rezoning before the council. Now Georgia reported that council held the hearing that night, and Habersham News later reported that the council denied the request after public opposition. The July notice, issued afterward, scheduled a new hearing and final-adoption consideration without explaining whether it reflected a renewed application, a continuation or another procedural step.
McCain Investment Properties, represented at the April hearing by attorney Matthew Benson, argued that the project fit the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning criteria. The applicant said the homes would be single-family rather than apartments, condominiums or townhomes; Now Georgia reported city staff said the request was consistent with adjacent uses and housing objectives. Habersham News reported that residents opposed the plan over stormwater runoff, steep terrain, traffic, access through existing neighborhood roads, erosion and the possible loss of agricultural land.
The proposal remains just that in the documented chronology. Habersham News reported that council denied the April 7 rezoning, but the cited official April agenda establishes that the hearing was scheduled, not the reported denial. Likewise, the July 9 city notice confirms only that a hearing and final-adoption consideration were scheduled; it does not confirm that R-2 zoning took effect, that the tract stayed agricultural, or that any follow-on development approval was granted.
The next public step is a city record showing what occurred after the July 9 proceeding, such as meeting minutes, a vote entry, an ordinance or notice of another hearing. Until one appears, residents cannot determine whether council approved the zoning change, left the property agricultural, denied the request again or chose another route. Any path toward the proposed subdivision remains undecided.