At its Jan. 16, 2025 meeting, the Westmoreland City Council voted unanimously to defer the second reading of Resolution R112-024-2, the proposed annexation of Goodall Farm, to the council's Feb. 8 meeting after an extended public hearing during which nearby residents raised concerns about runoff, flooding, traffic and notice errors.

The council took the action after public comments from residents who said they received insufficient notice and that recent work on the Goodall property has increased downstream flooding. "I live on old 31 E, and I don't wanna be within the city. I like being out of the county," resident Patricia Freshman said during the public hearing. Edward Love told the council he calculated large volumes of additional runoff from proposed development and warned the town's low-lying valley could be inundated. "If you have 1,400 homes, there will be 1,680,000 gallons of water that comes off these structures," Love said. Several other residents described repeated flood damage to fields, fences and trailers after work began on the property.

The matter attracted multiple speakers over the public-comment period. Sean Gregory and Willie Holmes raised questions about the accuracy of the legal description and the map in the annexation notice; Holmes said the document's starting point "does not match the plat from the county" and that parts of the boundary appear mislocated. Juan Douglas asked whether Goodall Farms is tied to Goodall Development and confirmed a cabin said to be on the property is included in the roughly "770 acres" discussed during the hearing.

A city official replied to residents' questions during the hearing, saying the currently proposed annexation applies only to Goodall Farm and that, under current rules, a city cannot force a property owner into city limits without a request. The official also acknowledged several residents had not received mailed notices and that the newspaper notice failed to run as expected, and the mayor proposed deferring second reading to allow corrections and additional notice.

Councilman Brown moved to defer R112-024-2 to the Feb. 8 meeting; Councilman Calvert seconded. The roll call on the motion was recorded as unanimous and the item will be re-noticed for the February meeting. No final decision on annexation was taken; the deferral preserves the council's ability to act after the additional notice and any follow-up staff reports.

Why it matters: Residents along Old 31 E and nearby lowlands told the council they face increased flood risk and traffic from potential development tied to the annexation. Many asked the city to clarify the annexation boundary, to explain who requested annexation and to study stormwater and roadway impacts before final action.

What’s next: The council set a new public hearing date for Feb. 8, 2025; the second reading of R112-024-2 will return to the agenda after the city reissues notice and staff provides any requested technical details.