Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves rezoning for Gonzales property despite planning commission denial
Summary
The Franklin County Commission voted 4-1 to rezone 20 acres near Pomona into four 5-acre lots for residential development after the planning commission had recommended denial; neighbors raised concerns about preserving rural character and groundwater from the Osage Aquifer.
The Franklin County Commission on Aug. 6 approved an application to rezone 20 acres north of Pomona to create four 5-acre residential lots, voting 4-1 despite a planning commission recommendation to deny the request.
A planning staff presentation said the property — commonly known as 437 Sand Creek and located about 2.75 miles north of Pomona — was proposed for rezoning of the east 20 acres to a residential estate (RE) district to allow four 5-acre lots. The staff report noted letters from Water Systems Engineering saying the proposed lots would be suitable for drilling domestic wells and referenced a soil analysis indicating acceptability for septic systems.
Planning staff told commissioners that members of the public who spoke to the planning commission generally requested denial, citing the area’s prevailing large-lot, agricultural character and concerns about groundwater. The staff summary said commenters cited long-standing worry about overuse of the Osage Aquifer and that neighbors feared additional drilled wells could reduce water levels for older wells.
Applicant Gonzales Jr., who was present, told the commission he planned “just house, estate houses” and that he intended to be the developer. “I wouldn't wanna do anything to deduct from the value of my own property,” Gonzales said, adding he preferred the four-lot plan because it would allow him options for the future.
Several commissioners and nearby residents said they favored remanding the application to the planning commission to consider alternatives, such as two 10-acre lots, arguing larger lots better match the surrounding rural character and address neighbors’ water concerns. Commissioners discussed driveway spacing, traffic at nearby intersections and the possibility of creating deed covenants to preserve rural character; several speakers urged disclosure to future buyers about rural conditions (dust, farm traffic).
After extended discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the application as submitted. The motion passed with one dissenting vote.
Votes recorded: Commissioner Meador voted No; Commissioners Dickinson, Saldemeyer and Wehmeyer and Chair Harris voted Yes.
Planning staff said the applicant could return to planning commission later if he wished to pursue alternative lot configurations or covenants; staff had previously recommended returning the application to planning commission for reconsideration with a 2x10-acre option, but the county commission chose to approve the four 5-acre lots.
The commission noted that roadway improvements (stop signs, intersection controls) may be required as development proceeds and that the planning process will include reviews for driveways and site access.
The commission approved the rezoning at the Aug. 6 meeting.
