Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies conditional use permit for 10 townhomes at 102 Samaritan Drive
Summary
The Coming City Council voted 4-0 to deny CUP 2025071, a proposal by Samaritan Holdings LLC to build 10 townhomes behind the Dunkin' at 102 Samaritan Drive after staff and the planning commission found the proposal out of conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and lacking parking, landscaping and buffering.
The Coming City Council denied a conditional use permit for 10 townhomes at 102 Samaritan Drive, voting 4-0 after the planning commission and city staff said the proposal did not conform to the city's comprehensive plan and lacked sufficient parking, landscaping and screening. The planning commission had unanimously recommended denial after its July 15, 2025 public hearing.
City planning staff member Scott read the planning commission report into the record, saying the application “is not in conformance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan,” and concluding the submitted site design provided insufficient off-street parking, landscaping, open space and screening. Scott also noted ingress and egress would be onto an unsignalized intersection at State Route 20 (Canton Highway), which could exacerbate existing turning movements.
Robert McCarra, one of the applicants representing Samaritan Holdings LLC, told the council the project aligns with the comprehensive plan’s mixed-use and downtown-revitalization goals and argued the proposal provides adequate parking and pedestrian access. “Residential is the desired component of any downtown core trying to create a livable downtown and a sense of community,” McCarra said, adding the 10-unit project provides two parking spaces per two-bedroom unit plus a guest space and that peak trip generation would be “in the range of 6 to 9 trips per hour.”
Council members asked staff and the applicant questions during the hearing. Councilmember (unnamed) moved to deny CUP 2025071, citing the planning commission and staff recommendation; a second was made and the motion carried 4-0. The council record does not show any conditions or alternative motions for approval.
Because the motion to deny passed, no permit was granted and there was no direction on specific design changes that would make the project approvable. The planning commission's report and the applicant's submitted materials, including preliminary elevations and a site plan, remain part of the public record for any future resubmission or appeal.
