Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wedgwood Townhomes Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on Wedgwood Townhomes rezoning; public hearing closes with connectivity, density concerns
Summary
Neighbors urged the council to reject or modify a rezoning request for Wedgwood Townhomes, primarily objecting to density and road connections. The public hearing for Ordinance O2507-41 was opened and closed during the meeting; no final council vote on second reading occurred at this session.
The Gallatin City Council held a public hearing and heard multiple residents oppose the rezoning and preliminary master plan for the Wedgwood Townhomes development, focusing on density, buffers next to existing houses and whether Paisley Way should connect to the new project.
Councilman Carter opened the public hearing on Ordinance O2507‑41 (rezoning approximately 10.18 acres from R‑15 to MU — mixed use — with a preliminary master plan for Wedgwood Townhomes). The public hearing was opened and then closed during the meeting; council did not take final action on second reading that night.
Several speakers who live adjacent to the proposed development said they support keeping Paisley Way disconnected from the new townhome neighborhood and asked for larger buffers between the new townhomes and existing single‑family yards. Russell Houski, a homeowner adjacent to the development, told the council he opposes a connection from his street: “As the homeowner adjacent to the new development, I do not want this connection. … We respectfully ask that the plan be kept as presented and recommended.”
Other speakers raised broader concerns about density and the compatibility of smaller townhome lots with nearby single‑family homes. Kelly Lane, a local resident, said the proposed townhome density would place townhomes “literally in our backyards” and compared the plan unfavorably to a previously denied smaller‑lot proposal (Winston Place). Lane collected about 16 petition signatures opposing the current layout and asked the council to require a larger buffer or to avoid approving a connection to Bernhardt Road or other neighborhood streets.
Amber Howski, representing neighbors on Paisley Way, asked the council to maintain the applicant’s current plan not to connect Paisley Way so the neighborhood experiences less direct traffic from the larger development.
Planning staff stated the rezoning application and preliminary master plan are the items under public review; staff did not present a final staff‑level recommendation for decision at the meeting. With the public hearing closed, the ordinance remains on the council’s agenda for future consideration; no second‑reading vote was recorded during this session.
Clarifying points raised in public comments included that the zoning change alone does not by itself authorize exceptions needed to build the townhome plan — the applicant would still require any variances or exceptions beyond standard code if the final plan cannot meet dimensional requirements. Neighbors requested specific protections: larger setbacks, no direct connections to existing quiet neighborhood streets (several named Paisley Way and Bernhardt), and stronger buffers to reduce visual and noise impacts.
The council will consider the matter at its next zoning/ordinance hearing; staff will include the public hearing record in the project file for planning and any subsequent action.
