Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Goodwin Manor Af Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves land‑use change and AF rezoning for Goodwin Manor after neighbors object
Summary
Commission voted to amend the land‑use map from residential low to agricultural and to rezone 3708 Garrison Road to AF for the Goodwin Manor property, despite neighboring residents arguing covenants and neighborhood promises prohibit farming uses and warning of future conflicts.
The Planning Commission approved two related items: an amendment to the land‑use map changing a 24.7‑acre Goodwin Manor parcel from residential‑low to agricultural (LU‑2025‑531) and a rezoning of 3708 Garrison Road from R‑2 to AF (agricultural/forestry).
Applicant representatives and proposed purchasers said the intent is limited: preserve timber, operate a small‑scale family farm/garden and continue modest on‑site agricultural activities (chickens, greenhouse, seasonal produce) tied to the family’s plans. Supporters said similar farm operations exist nearby and argued the AF zoning would protect the land from further subdivision into small single‑family lots.
Opponents, including multiple property owners in the gated Goodwin Estates subdivision, submitted the recorded covenants (declaration of restrictions) stating lots are for single‑family residential uses and forbidding most animal‑raising except limited horses; they also said the developer who recorded the covenants (the Goodwins) cannot now ask to rezone the land for agricultural uses that would contradict the deed‑restrictions. A civil lawsuit over covenant enforcement is already pending; Judge Fox had previously denied an injunction because events cited by neighbors had been paused, but preserved the court’s ability to act if activities resume.
After discussion the commission voted to approve the land‑use amendment and AF rezoning, with staff concluding AF is compatible with surrounding land uses and utility/transportation comments raised no objections. Opponents said the covenants and pending litigation remain a legal check and argued the rezoning will likely prompt further legal action.
Why it matters: The decision shows how recorded private covenants and public zoning can overlap and conflict; approval of AF zoning does not nullify private agreements and may lead to enforcement actions in civil court. The item also illustrates how land‑use amendments are used to preserve larger parcels for low‑intensity uses rather than further subdivision.
What’s next: The rezoning takes effect under the city’s procedures; opponents and property owners indicated they will continue the pending litigation to enforce the covenants; staff will monitor compliance with the zoning conditions.
