Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs staff to re-notice Kelly Smith Road rezoning amid disclosure and ownership questions
Summary
Commissioners agreed to bring a disputed rezoning and future‑land‑use amendment back to the agenda after staff and a developer described a recent ownership restructuring and documented prior communications involving a former city official.
The City Commission on Thursday directed staff to place a Kelly Smith Road / Creel Avenue rezoning and future‑land‑use application back on a future agenda after staff and the applicant clarified a complex ownership and filing timeline and after the city attorney recommended improved disclosure procedures.
The parcel in question was split into four lots and one lot was permitted and built after the commission previously approved a separate application. Developer Toby McWiggen described approaching city planning staff for a lot split and said the timing was chosen so construction could proceed while the formal subdivision and platting process continued.
City Attorney West and Planning Director Guillermo briefed commissioners on documentation showing investor and company‑ownership changes dating to mid‑2022 and on when planning staff were made aware of Jonathan Griffith’s financial interest in a related corporate entity. The attorney said the earliest internal record of Griffith’s role dates to July 2022 and that Griffith disclosed his interest verbally to staff; a written ownership disclosure followed later.
West told commissioners the application itself met the municipal standards for a future‑land‑use and zoning change but recommended procedural improvements. “Although financial disclosures had been made in state form 1, additional precautions were needed to prevent this from happening in the future,” West said, and staff confirmed that a supplemental ownership disclosure form had been adopted for future comprehensive‑plan and development‑order applicants.
Developer McWiggen said the transaction and the company structure were designed so construction could begin on one lot while the platting process for remaining lots proceeded. He told the commission that the investor relationship with a local former official had been dissolved in December 2024. The city attorney confirmed a written disclosure form is now required and advised staff to continue with full public notice if the commission wishes to consider the matter again.
Commissioner discussion emphasized two separable lines of review: the merits of the rezoning and the procedural question about prior staff disclosure and involvement by a former city official. Commissioners said they did not want procedural concerns to indefinitely delay consideration of the underlying rezoning request. After discussion the board directed staff to re‑notice the application for public hearing so the commission can take final action with full public notice in a future meeting.
Ending: Staff will prepare the public‑notice package and the planning report for the next available hearing and will include the new written ownership‑disclosure form for the file. The commission’s action was procedural; no rezoning decision was made at this meeting.
