Anna resident says commission was cut off from public feedback after developer took plan to council

Terrell Culbertson, a resident of 10429 County Road 289, told the City of Anna Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2 that he had attempted to submit written comments about a concept plan for a nearby development but was told by staff that commissioners could only receive public input when an item was posted as a public hearing.

Culbertson said he learned the plan for Trinity Creek and a related pre-development agreement had gone directly to City Council and was approved without a public hearing or what he called a routine opportunity to provide written input to the commission. “I was under the mistaken presumption that that plan would come back to you, and a public hearing be scheduled,” Culbertson said. He said staff had previously forwarded resident comments to commissioners but that an email from Mr. Peters informed him “that I did not have access to you to provide information unless an item was posted as a public hearing.”

The exchange matters because Planning and Zoning is the advisory body that typically reviews preliminary concepts before they move to City Council, giving residents an earlier opportunity to comment. Culbertson said the concept plan he reviewed raised three areas he believed did not conform to the city’s 2050 master land use plan; he said those concerns were sent to staff but that the developer’s pre-development agreement advanced to council without the public hearing he expected.

Greg Peters, assistant city manager, appears in the transcript as having communicated by email to Culbertson about the process, and staff generally reiterated at the meeting that formal comment procedures apply for items that are not public hearings. The commission did not take formal action on Culbertson’s complaint during the meeting.

Public records show the city posts meeting packets and public hearing notices; Culbertson said the concept plan had not been in the packet he received and that a developer representative later delivered a paper copy to his neighborhood. He asked the commission to clarify whether written comments to staff would continue to be forwarded or whether residents must appear in person at hearings to be heard.

The commission did not adopt any new procedure at the June 2 meeting. Commissioners and staff discussed standard public-comment rules during the session but made no formal directive about changing how written material is distributed to commissioners. The matter was raised as public comment and recorded in the meeting minutes, which will be part of the public record.