Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Kanesville topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose high‑density proposal on Kanesville Road; council defers annexation and rezoning to Feb. 18
Summary
After neighborhood residents urged denial of a proposed high‑density project, Lebanon City Council agreed to defer Boggs Builders’ annexation, future‑land‑use and rezoning requests for about 5.08 acres on Kanesville Road to the Feb. 18 meeting.
Lebanon City Council on a motion agreed to defer consideration of three related land‑use requests from Boggs Builders — a future‑land‑use amendment, annexation and rezoning for about 5.08 acres at 1944 and 1948 Kanesville Road — to the council’s Feb. 18 meeting after multiple residents urged the council to reject high‑density development adjacent to existing single‑family neighborhoods.
The requests before the council would change the parcel’s future land‑use designation from FLH‑2 (two units per acre) to RXH (mixed housing), annex roughly 5.08 acres into Ward 3 and rezone the property to the Foxwood specific plan. Planning Commission members recommended denial of the land‑use amendment and rezoning at their Nov. 18 meeting by votes reported in the packet (references: order 257116; resolution 252732; resolution 252733; order 257117). Councilor Berdyne moved the deferral; Councilor Carmack seconded and the motion carried with the council voting in favor.
Neighbors at the public hearing said the site is a small parcel surrounded by lower‑density neighborhoods and should remain compatible with existing lots. Jerry Johnson, 106 Chapman Drive, told the council that the proposed higher density would be “wildly incompatible” with the surrounding half‑acre and older homes and suggested the area will become desirable for larger single‑family redevelopment in the future rather than high‑density townhouses. Jack Brunson, who lives at 108 Fontaine Drive immediately adjacent to the property, said he and his neighbors value privacy and the “small quaint country neighborhood” character and do not welcome “super‑max housing” between the two neighborhoods. Sholanda Ruffin, speaking for a family that owns one of the parcels listed as “unaddressed” in the staff materials, said the application packet incorrectly stated that her family had asked the city to annex the property and asked staff to verify ownership information before any final action.
A staff representative said the address in the application was the one submitted to the city and that the applicant had told staff the parcel was under contract; staff said they would verify ownership details before any action.
Councilor Brode said he had spoken with the developer, who requested the deferral so the applicant could “go back to the drawing board and look at single‑family housing.” Brode said neighbors preferred single‑family development and that the request would be considered at the Feb. 18 meeting. The council made three separate motions to defer the related items to Feb. 18: the future‑land‑use amendment (order 257116), the plan of services/annexation (resolution 252732) and the zoning/rezoning request (order 257117); each was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote.
The deferral preserves the current city zoning and land‑use designation until the council reconsiders all materials, potential revisions from the applicant and any corrected ownership information at the February meeting.
Ending — The applicant’s package remains pending; the council’s Feb. 18 meeting will include the developer’s revised submittal and any neighborhood responses. Staff said it will verify parcel ownership and correct the application paperwork before the item returns to the council.
