Council presses developer on traffic, bridge and sewer terms in proposed Del Thomas Road annexation and PRD

A proposal to annex roughly 102 acres at 7025 Del Thomas Road and zone it Planned Residential Development drew extensive questions from Smyrna council members at a workshop meeting, with concerns centering on traffic impacts at nearby intersections, the condition and potential widening of a county bridge, and how much the town would be asked to pay for off‑site sewer upgrades.

Planning staff introduced the project as a PRD that would include about 202 single‑family lots and 40 townhomes. Staff said the developer would be required to deliver off‑site sewer improvements and obtain necessary stream-crossing permits; the developer’s traffic study recommended turn lanes and, as part of a regional improvement, a bridge‑widening element to address an offset intersection nearby.

Why it matters: Council members said the intersection and bridge work could materially affect safety and traffic flow for existing residents and new homes, and that the town should not be left absorbing open‑ended costs for sewer work without clearer limits.

Council members repeatedly asked staff for hard numbers on the town’s maximum potential obligation for sewer construction and on the engineer’s estimate versus a contractor bid. “We will not actually know the full amount of that delta until it’s actually bid,” a council member observed, prompting staff to say the agreement language would use an engineer’s estimate and then be adjusted to reflect actual bids.

Traffic and bridge concerns were the sharpest point of contention. One council member said the bridge’s reported condition and the traffic study’s reliance on a regional project were insufficient justification for delaying improvements: “I will not support this project without improvements to that bridge,” the council member said. The developer’s traffic engineer, Brandon Baxter, urged coordination between town and county staff and cautioned against making short‑term fixes that conflict with any longer‑range regional alignment, but said the applicant team would work with staff to refine recommendations.

Sewer repayment terms remain unresolved. Town staff and the developer said they had exchanged redlines on a sewer agreement and were still reconciling the developer’s requested reserved capacity and the town’s final payback calculation; staff said they expected additional numbers from the developer’s team before the next council meeting.

Next steps: Council members directed staff to continue negotiations, provide a clear engineer’s estimate and proposed contract language that would allow the council to revisit the project if actual bids exceed expectations. The applicant team agreed to return after further coordination; several council members recommended deferral of the ordinance until the next regular packet so members would have time to review updated materials.