The meeting saw multiple residents articulate their objections to the proposed development project in the Lake Iola area, focusing on traffic, safety, and environmental integrity. One resident referenced a 2014 traffic study concerning Dan Brown Hill, revealing that over 200 cars per day used a specific dirt road. The study highlighted safety issues at the intersection of Blandon Road, Lake Iola, and Spring Lake Highway. High-speed traffic from vehicles exiting I-75 exacerbates these dangers, raising questions about traffic control and safety measures for the anticipated developments, which would add approximately 1.5 million square feet of light industrial space and 300 residential homes.

Another speaker emphasized the inadequacy of the current intersection for handling increased traffic, especially with the proposed roundabout that lacks a timeline or funding. The speaker expressed frustration over the county’s management, arguing for no major rezoning until improvements at the intersection are made. Concerns about utility services, specifically water and wastewater management, were also raised. A resident noted that the project, located outside the utility service district, could not support 300 apartments on well and septic systems without health risks. Current regulations prohibit package plants in the Northeast rural area, leading to questions about how such a large project could proceed without adequate water and sewage services.

Environmental implications were a recurring theme. One resident shared a personal connection to the land and its agricultural heritage, emphasizing the unique biodiversity and wildlife in the region. They argued that the proposed development would disrupt this fragile environment and questioned the rationale behind altering land use designations crafted to maintain rural character and protect natural habitats. Concerns about urban sprawl and the loss of rural character were consistently voiced, with many urging the council to consider the long-term consequences of increased density on local wildlife and the integrity of the rural landscape.

In addition to traffic and environmental concerns, residents highlighted the potential for high-density developments to impact property prices. One long-time resident and contractor lamented that his children would not have the same opportunities he had, stating that he purchased 20 acres and built a house for less than $500,000 a few years ago. He argued that the current proposals would eliminate future generations’ chances of owning substantial property, advocating for preserving existing zoning.

The chair opened the floor for further discussion, with an official representing the applicants responding to public comments. The representative emphasized that the request did not involve an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Instead, they noted that the site was within a designated employment center, a designation part of the comprehensive plan since around 2004-2005. The uses requested are consistent with this designation, according to the representative.

Addressing traffic concerns, the applicant confirmed that a traffic study had been completed and approved by county staff, recommending improvements to Lake Aola Road. Logistical matters, such as solid waste management and utility availability, were also mentioned, with the applicant suggesting adherence to necessary agreements to provide services upon development. The conversation included specifics about mailed notifications to the public, confirming compliance with the county’s code requirements.

The meeting also addressed procedural aspects of the agenda. The chair entertained a motion to continue discussions on a zoning amendment for Evans County Line 80 MPUD, which would allow for 300 multifamily units and 1.5 million square feet of light industrial uses on about 80 acres, to the next meeting scheduled for October 3rd. This motion was seconded and passed without further debate.