Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development Conveyance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waverly council sets public hearing on conveyance that developer says will shift buildings away from wetlands
Summary
The City of Waverly on April 7 voted unanimously to set a public hearing on Resolution 25-46, a proposal to convey city property to a developer so the developer can shift building footprints away from nearby wetlands. City staff said the conveyance would preserve utility easements while allowing potential housing or commercial development.
On April 7, 2025, the City of Waverly City Council unanimously approved Resolution 25‑46 to set a public hearing on a proposal to convey an interest in city-owned real property to a private developer for the stated purchase price of $1 and other obligations under the agreement.
City staff told the council the parcel contains waterways and wetlands and has limited municipal use. Staff said giving the developer access to a narrow strip of city property would let the developer move building footprints and associated utilities farther from the wet areas, reducing the need for intrusive work in the wetlands. Staff described two pieces of property in the plan — an east‑west access segment and a north‑south segment — and said easements would remain in place for utilities and waterways.
The matter drew discussion from council members about exactly which pieces would change hands, whether utilities would need to be relocated, and what type of development might follow. Staff said the plan would let a developer shift building locations so they would not conflict with city-owned utilities; staff described the potential for townhouses under one plan and commercial uses under another, but said no final land use decision was being made at the meeting.
The resolution approved at the meeting sets a public hearing so the council and the public can review the proposed conveyance and related agreements. The meeting record uses two different names for the buyer in places: “Bridal Development Properties LLC” and “Prime Development Properties LLC.” The council vote did not resolve that inconsistency; staff indicated the developer is expected to appear at the public hearing to provide details.
Council members present voted yes on Resolution 25‑46. The motion to set the hearing was made and seconded on the council floor; a roll call recorded yes votes by Myers, Raffy, Wolfe, Bergen, Drinkout, Jones and Kangas, and the resolution carried unanimously.
The council did not adopt any land‑use approvals or conveyance documents in the April 7 meeting — the single formal action was to set the public hearing required before any conveyance takes place. Documents and a developer presentation were expected at that hearing so the council and public could review the exact parcel descriptions, legal conveyance language, and any conditions related to utility relocation or mitigation.
