Planning Commission Meeting: July 7, 2026

The Germantown Planning Commission met on July 7, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers to consider two related items for the Goodwin Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD): a revised outline plan (Case 17-729) and the final plan for Phase 2. The meeting included public testimony, extensive commission discussion, and unanimous approvals on both items with conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Edgar Babian (3580 Crestwind Dr., HOA president): Opposed the rephasing, citing the 2018 agreement that planned a construction road to keep traffic away from Crestwind. He expressed concern about water line looping (originally planned to connect to Poplar in Phase 1, now later), drainage changes from a removed street, and the loss of a promised park (now a payment-in-lieu). He stated the neighbors were not consulted.
• Dr. Anna Fong (9455 Forestwood Rd.): Asked that the developer honor the 2018 agreement, noting the rephasing appears driven by cost savings and that a park was promised. She also raised concerns about tree removal.
• Jason Greer (628 Silver Laurel Dr.): Criticized the developer’s track record, alleging unfulfilled promises, poor site maintenance, and a pattern of disregard for residents.
• Sahana Nagabushan Kalbergie (3636 Silver Laurel Dr.): Detailed ongoing issues in Phase 1: construction debris, broken glass, used condoms, porta-potties placed in front of homes, 200 nails collected on streets, tire damage, and work on Sundays and holidays (including July 3-4). She requested stronger oversight and accountability for Phase 2, especially regarding erosion mitigation and tree preservation.
• Mr. Pepin (address not given, neighbor): Urged preservation of existing mature trees, noting that many trees were removed in Phase 1 despite promises of a buffer.
• Robert Rogers (9455 Forestwood Rd.): Opposed the rephasing, calling it a “bait and switch.” He noted that the original phasing delayed development adjacent to his neighborhood, and the new plan accelerates it. He expressed concern about increased traffic.
• Brandon Welford (3366 Hollow Creek Rd.): Opposed the rephasing, stating that the character of the area (larger lots, mature trees) is being lost. He said buffer trees were cut down and that the developer’s proposed 2-3 inch caliper trees do not replace mature trees.
• Phil Connor (366 Ford Crestwind Dr.): Said neighbors saw no point in meeting with the developer because previous promises (e.g., traffic, trees) were broken. He reported construction traffic using his street and the removal of two large oaks without notice.

Discussion Items

• Item 6A – Goodwin Farms PUD Revised Outline Plan: Staff (Ms. Goraleski) and applicant (John McCarty, McCarty Granberry Engineering) presented the request to rephase the 99.089-acre PUD from 9 phases to 7, realigning phase boundaries so that Phase 2 moves to the location of former Phases 5 and 7. The change was driven by the need to extend a water line to Forestwood Road (required by the 2018 approval) during Phase 2 infrastructure work, avoiding future disruption. The overall lot count would decrease from 232 to 228. Commissioners discussed water line looping, drainage (stormwater design to be reviewed at final plan stage), construction traffic (type III barricade to block Forestwood road, internal turnarounds for trucks), and tree preservation. The commission noted that the original plan had no park dedication, only a parkland dedication fee; the developer was not proposing a park. Chairman McCreery and others argued that the rephasing improves construction logistics and water line reliability.
• Item 6B – Goodwin Farms PUD Phase 2 Final Plan: The applicant requested approval of a final plan for 41 lots on 18.01 acres, with three common open spaces. The key issue was tree mitigation. The original 2018 approval required a tally of trees removed vs. planted at the end of Phase 3, with a payment-in-lieu option. The developer requested to use the current vegetation ordinance formula (which does not count trees smaller than 10 inches DBH or the two required front-yard trees toward mitigation) and to calculate and pay any mitigation fee at the end of each phase, starting with Phase 2. Staff noted that the arborist report and tree plan are not yet final; they will be submitted at initial acceptance. The commission discussed the need for an updated tree mitigation calculation and payment before the plat is recorded. Commissioner Clark raised concerns about drainage plan details; staff confirmed that final drainage analysis will be reviewed at the construction plan stage.

Key Outcomes

• Item 6A (Revised Outline Plan): Approved unanimously (9-0). The vote was taken after the public hearing. The motion carried with conditions from the staff report. The revised outline plan will now proceed to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for review and approval.
• Item 6B (Phase 2 Final Plan): Approved unanimously (9-0) with an amendment. The amendment, proposed by Chairman McCreery, modified the conditions of approval to require that the applicant provide updated tree mitigation calculations for Phases 1 and 2, along with an as-built tree plan and arborist report, and pay any required tree mitigation fee (if needed) at the time of initial acceptance and before the plat is recorded. This condition will also be included in the development contract. The final plan will next be reviewed by the Design Review Commission and then the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.