Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables three development items, holds hearings for public comment
Summary
The Opelika Planning Commission opened public hearings and voted to table three development agenda items — Willow Park, Bridgewater Communities and a proposal at 706 Geneva Street — at the applicants' requests. A nearby resident spoke against the Geneva Street design, raising drainage and privacy concerns.
The Opelika Planning Commission on Aug. 26 opened public hearings and voted to table three development proposals at the applicants' requests: Willow Park (South Unirole Road), Bridgewater Communities (off Logan Drive/Columbus Parkway) and a proposal at 706 Geneva Street brought by Sanford Group for LAME LLC.
Commission staff told the commission the three applicants asked that their agenda items be tabled and recommended the commission concur. The commission granted the tabling motions by voice vote.
Why it matters: Tabling preserves the applicants' right to return with revised materials while giving nearby property owners additional time to review and comment. It also keeps the items on the public record so citizens may speak at today's hearings if they wished.
At the public hearing on the LAME LLC proposal at 706 Geneva Street, Jessica Rosar, who identified herself as a neighbor at 802 Geneva Street, said the project’s preliminary site plan covers about 75% of the lot with impervious surface and raised concerns about drainage and loss of privacy. "Where's the water gonna go?" Rosar asked, noting she lives downhill of the lot and that her 1924 house has a sump pump because of a shallow water table. She also complained that a proposed road would be "3 feet off the fence" and asked whether street lights and headlights would intrude on her yard.
Rosar asked for design modifications and stronger privacy screening; she said the preliminary plan showed “about 5 trees along the fence line,” which she called insufficient. The commission halted further discussion on the item and voted to table the proposal so parties could return with additional information and options.
Actions: The commission took three tabling motions, one for each item. Each motion was made and seconded by commissioners on the floor and carried by voice vote; exact roll-call tallies were not specified on the record.
What happens next: The applicants may revise materials and return to a future Planning Commission meeting. Staff said tabling would give both parties time to consider options and produce additional information for the commission and the public.
Ending: The tabling preserves public notice while allowing staff, applicants and neighbors to pursue design changes and further study before formal votes.
