Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts ordinance annexing about 100.67 acres; developer, neighbor to discuss buffer
Summary
The Green Battalion Council voted 8-0 to adopt Ordinance No. 25 14, annexing approximately 100.67 acres between County Road 125 West and County Road 200 West. Developer Harvard Homes and a neighboring property owner said they would discuss a berm or landscaping buffer; planning staff said any private agreement would need further review.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Green Battalion Council voted 8-0 to adopt Ordinance No. 25 14, annexing approximately 100.67 acres located between County Road 125 West and County Road 200 West.
The annexation will expand the city's corporate boundaries and clear the way for development proposals on the parcel, which a developer said would meet local RL and RM standards. The issue drew public comment from a neighboring property owner who asked for a berm or other buffer between his property and the new development.
Campbell sponsored the ordinance. Tony Howard of Harvard Homes told the council the company is "just looking to move forward" and expects to meet applicable standards, saying the project would "be[ ] underneath the balance of standards and requirements." Howard said Harvard Homes would be willing to discuss a landscaping or berm solution with the adjacent homeowner. Robert Poole, who identified his address as 3489 and said his property sits just south of the proposed addition, told the council he has "plenty of room" on his land to accept a berm placed to the west toward Hunt Creek Road and said a buffer would help preserve his property's value.
A representative from the planning department told the council that any commitment between a developer and a homeowner would likely be a private agreement or "maybe even a handshake deal," and that planning and engineering staff would need to review how such an agreement would function on the planning and engineering side. Council members discussed whether commitments should be recorded; planning staff said the feasibility and enforceability would require further review.
The ordinance passed on a recorded vote of 8 to 0. The council did not adopt additional written conditions at the meeting; planning staff said they would examine the legal and engineering implications of a private agreement or recorded commitment and follow up.

