The Troy Planning Commission considered plans for two controversial proposed subdivisions this week, rejecting one and tabling action pending a traffic study on the second..

The proposed subdivision developments were represented by PLS Group Inc. of Troy, which was seeking preliminary plat approval so the developments could move into the engineering and design phases.

The first proposed subdivision, Magnolia Estates, would be in the area of County Road 1149, partially in the Troy City limits and partially in the county jurisdiction. The proposed subdivision would sit on 87.64 acres of land and would be comprised of 69 lots with 2,000-square foot homes. Some of the concerns raised by residents of the area were the increased traffic in the area and environmental impact on surrounding land. 

“While I understand the need for development in our community, I have significant concerns regarding the Magnolia Estates project as it is currently proposed as a negative for our surrounding area,” said Kelly Norris, who lives on County Road 1149. “I am concerned about the increased traffic. The proposed density of Magnolia Estates raises significant questions about the capacity of the existing roads. County Road 1149 is in rough shape, and it is like driving on a washboard. Also, we have one speed limit sign on that road and there aren’t many police cars that patrol this area, which is also a concern.” 

Norris also raised concerns of the wetlands and surrounding environment, specifically drainage issues that could come with the new development. 

Cory Rushing of PLS Group, Inc., emphasized that the wetlands behind the property would not be impacted because no work would be done in the area. He also said that storm drainage issues would be studied during the engineering phase and the development would have to meet city codes/requirements to ensure that any drainage doesn’t negatively impact surrounding areas. 

Community member Victoria Baldwin also raised concerns that the increased traffic would bring.

“The development would be directly in front of my house,” Baldwin said. “I picked this area because it’s rural but not completely rural, so I’m still kind of close to the city. I believe bringing in 69 houses will just overpopulate the area. It’s just not safe. We have a lot of children in the homes in our area. It wouldn’t be safe for our kids to play outside, it would literally be at my front door.

“I’m not comfortable with the safety, with the traffic or with the size of the homes. All of our homes are in the 2,500- to 2,600-square-foot range. I’m not trying to say what to do with your land. You want to build 10 homes? Great but not 69.”

Commissioner Jack Norton made a motion to approve the request for the preliminary plat, but no one seconded it. Commissioner Sharon McSwain-Holland made a motion to deny the request along with requesting environmental, traffic and drainage studies for any future consideration. 

“If we’re making a life-altering change – not saying there shouldn’t be development there – but the information should be there so that these people can rest well having had their concerns addressed,” McSwain-Holland said.. 

Holland’s motion was seconded and the request was denied by a vote of 7-1. 

The second subdivision offered for review was “The Pines,” a proposed development surrounding Crow Pond off Elm Street in Troy. The proposed subdivision would sit on 179.71 acres of land with 40 homes on the west side of the pond and an additional 238 on the east side. A large group of residents from the Crow Hill/Woodland Hills neighborhoods, Barron Road community and who live on George Wallace Drive and Elm Street came to oppose the potential development. 

Troy resident Frank Marquett was selected by a group of Crow Hill residents to represent their concerns, with the main focus being on three access roads between Crow Hill and The Pines that were initially a part of the preliminary plat proposal. 

“We met with people in the community, consulted professionals, talked to people with the city, and we spoke with everyone here,” Marquett said. “One option that was proposed was to install an emergency-only access road between Woodland Hills and the proposed Pines community. That did not meet all of our needs – and not everyone is happy – but it met our primary need, which is not to have roads coming from our neighborhood to service the new development.”

Rushing said there would be just one access point, at Brookwood Road, that would connect the two communities for fire and emergency access. A gate would be placed at the access point and the city would determine if it could be closed or would need to remain open. There would also be three access points coming off of Elm Street and one that connects to Barron Road. 

Residents also expressed concerns about the development’s impact on property values, especially in the Barron Road Community. The 40 homes on the west side of the development are expected to be larger, custom-built homes, while the 238 homes on the east side would be smaller patio homes. While Rushing said that the minimum square footage of each of those homes would be 1,600 square feet, that did not ease residents’ concerns.

“I don’t know how you fee,l but if I put a junkyard next to your house, you’d have a hissy,” Barron Road resident Lavell Martin said. “I consider these chicken coops that they’re talking about building to be junk. My house is a 4,000-square foot house just like they are on Crow Hill, and I don’t need these little houses surrounding me to devalue my property.” 

Another speaker, David Curtis, cited a rumor on Facebook that implied there would be homes as small as 600 square feet built in the development, but Rushing quickly shot that down.

“The minimum is 1,600 square feet. I’m not building the houses but they’re not putting 600-square foot homes there,” Rushing emphatically said. “That was a blatant lie that someone put on Facebook. It’s just not true.”

That did little to ease Curtis’ concerns, however.

“I’ve been there 20 years,” Curtis responded. “First, they tried to put a trailer park next to us. Then they tried to put apartments, and then this comes. They’re trying to devalue our property along that area, so someone can make some money.”

The property owner, Carol Amos, also spoke at the hearing.

“My family developed Crow Hill and Barron Road, and I care deeply about the development of both of them and we’ve always tried to do right by them,” she said. “I am in a position where it’s time for me to move on. I cannot continue to develop but these potential buyers are trying their best to buy this property and make it where they can develop it. I’m also a Realtor, and patio homes are not something horrible. People want those (homes) and there is a demand for those.

“Twenty years ago there were 27 of our prominent citizens that came to me and wanted patio homes down by the lake. I have been begged, and asked, for years to develop this property because it is a beautiful property and it is right where it needs to be. We’re near the schools, near the town and we don’t have to cross (Highway) 231.” 

Thomas Nash raised concerns over the traffic on the road as well as oversaturing the area with homes that he said are not needed.

“This morning at 7:35 a.m., at the bottom of George Wallace and Elm Street, there were 117 vehicles lined up in three directions,” he continued. “At 4:55 this afternoon there were 157 available homes in the 36081 zip code and 357 homes in Pike County, ranging from $45,000 to $1.2 million. Housing is not the issue, making money seems to be the issue.”

Commissioner Sam Green made a motion to table the request for approval for 30 days so that a traffic study can be done before being brought back for a potential vote. 

“We feel like we have met the zoning requirements for a preliminary plat, so we request that you either approve or deny,” Rushing told the commission. 

Instead, Green’s motion was seconded and it was approved 7-1 by the commission to table the request for 30 days pending that study.