Keene council deadlocks on rezoning of three parcels along Highway 67 after heated public hearing

Keene City Council on Feb. 20, 2025, ended a public hearing on a request to rezone three parcels along U.S. Highway 67 without approving the application or issuing a denial. The proposal, filed by an applicant identified in the hearing as Mr. Griffin of Provident Land Investors, would change three numbered tracts from Single‑Family 2 (SF‑2) to General Commercial, C‑2.

The applicant’s attorney, real estate lawyer Steve Reed, told the council the rezoning request matches the city’s 2019 comprehensive plan for the Highway 67 corridor and said the owner had lost prior residential purchasers after the city’s guidance changed. “We’re asking you to do what you’ve told us to do with the property,” Reed said.

Residents who live along the unpaved easement that provides the only driveway access to several homes and to two city‑owned parcels urged the council to reject or delay the rezoning. Emily Samotovich, a homeowner at 201 East Highway 67, said construction would “block access during the construction process” and called the logistics of improving the road “a nightmare.” Other neighbors, including property descendants who said their families have owned the land for generations, asked the council to preserve private access and the wooded character of the area.

City staff and the city attorney explained technical and legal limits: the roadway behind the parcels is a deeded easement (not a city‑maintained street), and a developer proposing commercial uses would be required to construct a paved access meeting city subdivision and fire‑protection standards before the city would accept the street for maintenance. City staff also confirmed the existing water main feeding the area is a 2‑inch line and noted Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) guidance that limits the number of service connections on that size line.

Planning & Zoning had recommended approval of the rezoning. The council considered multiple motions during the meeting: a motion to deny the rezoning “with prejudice” (which would bar re‑application for a year) failed; a subsequent motion to deny “without prejudice” also failed after the council recorded a 3–3 tie on that motion. A later motion to accept the rezoning failed for lack of the required majority. At the meeting’s conclusion the city attorney said no final council action had passed and the parcels remain zoned SF‑2.

Why it matters: rezoning to C‑2 would allow a wide range of commercial uses and could be subdivided or sold to multiple buyers; neighbors say the change could bring traffic, alter property values and complicate the only existing driveway access. The council’s indecision leaves the status quo in place but does not prevent the applicant from reapplying or returning with revisions.

The council was advised that under city code a Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve generally requires only a simple majority to pass at council; overturning P&Z requires a 75% council vote. The applicant may pursue revisions and must, if development moves forward, submit plats and construction plans that would be reviewed for drainage, screening and road access.

No ordinance or zoning change was adopted at the meeting; the item may return to Planning & Zoning and then to council for further action.