At a meeting of the City of Tyler Planning and Zoning Commission, commissioners voted to deny a proposed 42‑unit, cottage‑style housing community intended for residents 55 and older in the Irish Meadows neighborhood and took final action on several other rezoning requests, approving single‑family lots, duplexes for seniors, a medical clinic conversion and a motel conversion.

The Irish Meadows request (Z25‑012) sought to rezone roughly six acres from Agricultural to Neighborhood Residential (NR) to allow 42 detached cottages marketed to seniors, with the applicant saying the project would give priority to veterans. Planning staff recommended denial and calculated written protests at 22.17 percent — above the 20 percent threshold that, if confirmed at the time of a formal council hearing, would require a three‑quarters majority of City Council for approval. After substantial resident comment on traffic, drainage and neighborhood character, commissioners moved to deny the rezoning. The denial means the applicant may file an appeal with the planning department; the commission reminded the public that a denied applicant has 10 calendar days to file a written appeal and that appeals are acted on by City Council.

Staff presentation and applicant comments

City staff described the Irish Meadows site as currently zoned agricultural and noted that NR zoning would allow up to 10 units per acre; the applicant proposed 42 units (about 7.08 units per acre). Planner testimony noted 22 mailed notices had produced 13 returns in opposition, generating the 22.17 percent protest calculation and a staff determination that the request was “generally inconsistent with the approval criteria.”

Bob Breedlove, representing the developer, introduced Steve Griffith of the Lifeway Foundation as the project's manager. Griffith described the plan as a ‘‘cottage village’’ focused on seniors and said the development would emphasize community and green space. ‘‘Loneliness is the biggest issue that old folks, face,’’ Griffith told commissioners, and he said the project aimed to provide transportation and lower vehicle use: ‘‘using the Institute of Transportation Engineers ... our little 42 cottage would actually be 35 to 38% less traffic than if it was an R1A with 20 homes,’’ he said. Griffith also apologized to neighbors for causing concern: ‘‘I really had I really had no idea. So, so this I'm on a learning curve too.’’

Resident opposition

More than a dozen residents spoke in opposition at the meeting. Speakers described narrow, uncurbed streets; roadway potholes and erosion; recurring backyard flooding; lack of promised sidewalks and sewer upgrades since annexation; and worry about traffic from delivery, caregiver and emergency vehicles. Amanda Addison, a 17‑year resident, said the road in question ‘‘was actually built when Loop 49 cut off the access to the property’’ and that the neighborhood’s narrow lanes would be unsafe with added traffic. Paul Oster, a resident of 30 years, told commissioners ‘‘We cannot absorb that amount of new traffic. Our roads are unsafe as it is,’’ and said the 55‑plus designation ‘‘is not a veteran’s home’’ and would allow any resident 55 and older.

Commission action

After public comment and staff recommendation to deny, a commissioner moved and a second was recorded; the motion to deny carried. The commission’s record notes the applicant may pursue an appeal to City Council, and staff reminded the public of the 10‑day appeal window.

Votes at a glance

- Z25‑012 (Jamie J. Boyd / Irish Meadows): Request to rezone agricultural to NR for a 42‑unit 55+ detached cottage development. Staff recommended denial; written protests calculated at 22.17 percent. Commission denied the rezoning (motion made and seconded; roll call not read in transcript). Next procedural step: applicant may appeal to City Council within 10 calendar days.

- PD25009 / Henry’s Fork Investments LLC: Planned‑development request to allow two four‑plex residential buildings (8 units total) on a single lot. Staff recommended approval; neighbors expressed concerns about concentration and traffic. Commissioners voted to deny for density reasons; transcript records the denial as 5‑2.

- Z25‑009 (Lynn Han / Woodbine Boulevard): Request to change R1A to C2 (general commercial) on a lot fronting Loop 323. Staff recommended denial citing incompatibility with surrounding single‑family character; the commission denied the rezoning.

- Z25‑014 (Northchase Development): Request to change RMF (multifamily) to R1B (single‑family) to develop approximately 38–40 single‑family lots; staff found the request consistent with the city’s land‑use goals and recommended approval. Commission approved the rezoning.

- Z25‑011 (Beverly Banks Monroe): Request to rezone a small RMF parcel to R1D to allow two single‑family lots; staff recommended approval and the commission approved the request.

- Z25‑015 (College Hill Missionary Baptist Church): Request to consolidate split zoning and rezone property to R2 (two‑family) to permit construction of senior duplexes (7–8 duplexes planned). Staff recommended approval; the commission approved the rezoning.

- PD25007 (Jennico West / Mud Creek LLC): Request to rezone R1A to PUR for seven detached single‑family homes on a private gated street; staff recommended approval and the commission approved the planned development.

- Heritage Baptist Church (R1A to C1): Applicant under contract to convert an existing church building to an ophthalmology/eye clinic. Staff recommended approval; the commission approved the rezoning. Staff and applicant said the existing structure will be remodeled rather than demolished and buffers will be provided along residential edges.

- Z25‑013 (SRK Group LLC): Request to change RMF to C2 to convert a former dormitory to a motel/lodging use. Staff recommended approval; the commission approved the request.

What it means

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that denied applicants may file appeals and that rezoning approvals are subject to conditions and later site‑plan and permit reviews. For Z25‑012 the staff protest calculation exceeded 20 percent; if that protest is confirmed at the time of a council hearing, City Council would need a three‑quarters majority to approve.

Several items that passed will return to the city for permits or for City Council review where procedural rules require it. The commission adjourned to a workshop after the hearing.

Ending

The commission’s decisions reflect an often‑repeated tension at the meeting: developers citing housing demand and specialized housing needs, and long‑standing residents citing narrow streets, drainage and character of established neighborhoods. Residents were reminded that the formal appeal and council review processes are available and that staff will field follow‑up questions on engineering and drainage at the permit stage.