Demorest’s Saluda Drive rezoning remains unresolved after reported denial and later hearing notice

Demorest’s most recent documented action on McCain Investment Properties’ proposed Saluda Drive subdivision was a city public-hearing notice setting July 9 consideration and final-adoption consideration of a rezoning for 10.74 acres behind Hancock Meadows. The notice again described a request to move the tract from Agricultural to R-2 for a 34-lot single-family subdivision, but it does not say whether City Council voted that night, postponed the question or reached another outcome.

The unanswered decision matters because the requested zoning change would determine whether the tract may leave its agricultural classification for the R-2 designation sought by the applicant. The development materials describe 34 detached single-family lots, while the hearing materials identify R-2 as multi-family residential—a distinction that became central to the debate over what could be built and how the project would fit the area. Even an approval would not itself authorize construction; engineering, subdivision review and permits would still be separate steps.

The proposal first appeared in a March 3 city agenda, which scheduled a public hearing and identified April 7 for final-adoption consideration. Now Georgia reported that council held the Saluda Drive hearing in early March, with city staff saying the requested density was about 3.16 homes per acre and consistent with surrounding uses and housing objectives. An April 7 city agenda again listed the hearing. That evening, Habersham News reported, council denied the rezoning after public opposition. The later July notice nevertheless placed the same tract and zoning request back on the council’s calendar, creating the current uncertainty.

McCain Investment Properties, represented at the reported March hearing by attorney Matt Benson, argued that the project would contain only single-family homes—not townhouses, condominiums or apartments—and that its density was below what R-2 could otherwise allow, according to Now Georgia. City staff, as reported by the outlet, viewed the request as compatible with adjacent land uses and orderly growth. Residents who spoke at the April hearing, according to Habersham News, urged council to reject it, citing stormwater runoff, steep terrain, traffic, access through existing neighborhood roads, erosion and the loss of agricultural land. Those concerns were reported claims and objections, not findings established by a city decision record.

What is documented officially is a proposal and two scheduled rounds of consideration, most recently the July 9 notice. Habersham News reported that council denied the request on April 7, but the April agenda is an agenda, not an official item-result record, and establishes only that consideration was scheduled. Likewise, the July notice confirms that another hearing and final-adoption consideration were scheduled; it does not confirm that R-2 took effect, that the tract remained agricultural, or that any follow-on development approval was granted. No reported construction start, permit issuance or completed homes are established here.

The next concrete public step is the appearance of a city record showing what occurred after the July 9 proceeding—such as meeting minutes, a vote entry, an adopted ordinance or a notice setting another hearing. Until then, residents cannot determine whether council approved the rezoning, left the land agricultural, denied the request again or chose another path. The proposed 34-home subdivision therefore remains undecided, along with any later engineering, subdivision and permitting decisions that would be required before building could proceed.