HCEDC tables sale of 210 Main Street after residents, pastor and mayor press for formal plan

The Haslet Community Economic Development Corporation (HCEDC) on Tuesday tabled consideration of a proposed sale of 210 Main Street after neighbors voiced concern about possible parking and lighting changes and the pastor making an offer discussed his plan for limited parking and community uses.

The item, listed as HCEDC agenda item 8.2, was tabled by a 4–1 vote after extended public comment and discussion between neighbors, the pastor who made an offer, the mayor and HCEDC staff.

The vote followed public comments from residents who said they feared additional pavement and lights if the church’s offer were accepted. Christina Reynolds, who identified herself as a homeowner at 204 Main, said, “I don't want you to have more parking because that no one wants to live next to a parking lot,” and asked the board to prioritize green space and neighborhood character. Sandra Smith, who lives on Second and Gamble Street in Old Town, told the board she has tracked ownership changes in the five-block area and said she is concerned about how city-owned parcels are being used.

Pastor John Slinker, who said his congregation made two offers on the parcel, described the church’s intended uses and disputed accusations of impropriety. “We would love that little piece of property to add to our piece of property there so we can do some things with the church,” Slinker said, describing the church’s existing programs and its desire for modest parking, egress improvements and green space.

HCEDC and city staff told residents that any development of the parcel would be subject to separate review and approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and that ordinances—such as lighting, screening and parking requirements—would apply. Planning staff member Morris said a concept/site plan will be required if the property is developed and noted that the planning process includes a photometric (lighting) plan to limit light spill to adjacent homes.

Board and staff next steps agreed at the meeting included producing a conceptual site plan for the property, convening a public workshop to gather information and comments, and returning the matter to a future HCEDC meeting for formal discussion. Morris said he expected to have a concept plan prepared prior to the board’s next scheduled meeting.

The board discussed several procedural points raised in public comment, including whether a sale could be conditioned on future development restrictions and whether the city would have the option to reject a donation of parkland. City legal counsel Mr. Page explained that an economic development corporation may consider nonprice factors in evaluating offers, and that if the HCEDC conveyed property to the city as parkland the city would be tightly limited by state law in future uses of that land and would typically require a public vote to remove a park designation.

After debate the HCEDC voted 4–1 to table item 8.2 and directed staff to collect additional information, produce a concept/site plan with input from the pastor and neighbors, and schedule a workshop to receive information before any further board action.

Ending: The board left the item open for return to a future agenda; HCEDC members said the workshop and a site concept should inform any later decision. Residents were told they may comment to Planning and Zoning and City Council later in the process when the matter reaches those bodies.