Council postpones decision on Old Union Road rezoning after public opposition

The Lufkin City Council voted to postpone a decision on a proposed rezoning and future land use map changes affecting properties at 2905 and 2911 Old Union Road after a public hearing that drew multiple residents opposed to the proposal.

City staff said the request would reclassify portions of the properties to allow a proposed 60-unit multifamily development, change future land use designations from agricultural/rural to high-density residential for portions totaling 6.5 acres and make other parcel-level changes (the staff presentation listed 3.752 acres, 6.5 acres, and 2.184 acres for different portions of the project). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5–2 vote. Staff told the council it received nine letters opposing the request from residents inside the statutory notification area and an additional 19 emails and letters from outside that area; because signed opposition exceeded 20 percent of the required notification area a supermajority of three-fourths of council is required per what staff referenced as "chapter 2 11 of the local government code." Staff recommended approval.

Multiple neighbors testified in opposition during the public hearing. Jane Ainsworth, whose property borders the eastern tract, said the development could "landlock a significant portion of land at the back end of the property" and characterized the proposed units as low-income housing rather than market-rate apartments. Jared White, a property owner in the center of the tract, said he and his wife were opposed and worried about property‑value impacts and traffic. Megan White and Forrest Griffin also told the council they opposed the change, citing pedestrian safety on Old Union Road, lack of sidewalks and an abundance of nearby apartments.

Scott Rayburn, identified in the hearing as the city planner, confirmed that Planning and Zoning placed no conditions limiting unit count or requiring fences or buffers. Rayburn also said the initial concept had called for 84 units before being reduced to 60 during the review process. During council discussion, Councilmember Kim recused herself from the matter and left the dais for the discussion and vote. A motion to postpone the item was made to allow staff to present additional information and to pick a date when the full council could be present; the motion passed. Council and staff discussed returning the item after May 6, with May 20 discussed as a likely date for a full‑council hearing.

The council did not take a final zoning vote at the meeting; the item was postponed to a future meeting for further information and to ensure a full council could vote if a supermajority were required.