Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed commercial rezoning on South Cherry fails after residents raise drainage concerns
Summary
A proposal to rezone 3.13 acres from single‑family to commercial for an office/warehouse park failed on first reading after the council expressed concern about drainage and compatibility with the draft future land‑use plan.
Tomball City Council declined to adopt an ordinance on first reading Monday that would have rezoned a 3.13‑acre parcel on South Cherry Street from single‑family 6 to commercial, following public testimony about longstanding drainage issues and council concern about consistency with the draft future land‑use map.
John Arledge, the applicant, told the council he had worked with neighbors and city staff to address a known drainage bowl on and near the site and argued commercial redevelopment would help resolve upstream flooding. “I have a lot of support in the area,” Arledge said, adding the proposed project would be an $8 million investment that increases the tax base.
Several nearby residents and property owners spoke during the public hearing, describing persistent standing water and fears that new development would worsen flooding and reduce property values. Alvin Nelson, a resident, described frequent ponding on his property and warned that “if they build any more” it could increase local flooding.
City planning staff noted the property’s current future‑land‑use designation as neighborhood residential; the planner said the draft update classifies the parcel as high‑density residential, a change intended to transition intensity from nearby business and industrial uses down to single‑family neighborhoods.
Council members said the drainage issue is real but said they were reluctant to change existing residential zoning in a location identified as residential on the city’s draft future‑land‑use map. Staff told council that any development proposal would need to accommodate upstream drainage impacts and that the developer had been asked to consider dedicating easement or right‑of‑way to allow detailed drainage studies and future pipe installations.
The motion to adopt the ordinance on first reading failed; the council record shows “Motion failed.” The developer may choose to pursue further coordination with neighbors and staff and could return with a revised application or more detailed drainage engineering.
