Development

Mitras rezoning

Summary not yet generated for this topic.

Community sentiment

Opposed (5)Concerned (1)

At a glance

Public comments
6
Last 30 days
0

Last discussed Jun 11, 2026.

Public comments (6)

OpposedCody McBrideJun 11, 2026

A 59-year Kent Grove resident opposed the project, citing Ryles Branch wetlands, the Pithlachascotee River corridor, lack of water/sewer, and the rural character of the community.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 3:45:01 →
OpposedTim (Kent Grove resident)Jun 11, 2026

Raised shared FEMA flood zone A concerns, road flooding, dust from the dirt road, and asked for guarantees against flooding and for the north entrance to be paved.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 3:47:15 →
OpposedLeah BarcelonaJun 11, 2026

Warned the area connects to the Pithlachascotee River Preserve, floods during heavy rain, and called any such development incompatible with the rural community.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 3:50:12 →
ConcernedJane BrownJun 11, 2026

Asked the commission to hold evening meetings per state statute so working residents can attend, and mentioned area flooding concerns.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 4:11:20 →
OpposedChristy ZimmerJun 11, 2026

Said the $375,000 road contribution is insufficient, the paving only served the developer, and questioned why maximum density is sought when the future land use is lower.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 3:54:27 →
OpposedMikaela KrauseJun 11, 2026

An emotional appeal about protecting sacred rural land, wildlife, and clean water from developers who, she said, only see profit.

Planning Commission - Jun 11, 2026 · 3:56:40 →