Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Morton Drive Path topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Planning Commission to block proposed nature path behind Morton Drive homes
Summary
Three Spring Hill residents told the Planning Commission a mapped neighborhood path would run as close as 7 feet from houses, reduce privacy, remove mature trees and create maintenance and safety problems; they presented a 40-signature petition asking the HOA or developer to remove the path from the recorded plat.
Three residents of the Copper Ridge neighborhood told the Spring Hill Planning Commission that a proposed nature path shown on the recorded plat would run immediately behind a row of homes and that they oppose installation.
Jerry Martin, a resident at 2109 Morton Drive, told the commission the path shown on subdivision documents runs "literally 7 feet from the edge of my house" and that he and neighbors had gathered a petition of about 40 signatures opposing the path. He said attempts to get information from the developer and the homeowners association had gone unanswered and that the mayor had advised him the commission was the body to which a plat change must be petitioned.
Laura Revere, a homeowner at 2103 Morton Drive, said the path would "invade property, severely disrupting the quiet enjoyment of our homes," that it would likely require removal of mature trees used for shade and erosion control, and that the proximity to back doors raised safety and privacy concerns. She added the neighborhood chose the lots for their privacy and natural landscape and said the path would transform those private spaces into a public thoroughfare.
Karen Luff, 1965 Allerton Way, said she signed the petition and voiced concern about poor long‑term maintenance in the neighborhood. "When I look at that and I hear that they're gonna try other improvements, it's frightening to me," she said, citing cracked park benches and other amenities that she said the HOA or property manager had not maintained.
All three residents asked the commission to note their opposition on the public record and to expect a petition to remove the path from the plat. Commissioners did not take action on the comments; public comments were recorded during the non‑agenda comment period and the commission moved on to agenda business.
Residents said key concerns include proximity (about 7 feet), lack of fencing or maintenance guarantees from the HOA, the potential removal of mature trees, and a perceived absence of need because existing roads and walkways already serve local circulation. The petition they presented seeks removal of the path from the recorded plat rather than post‑construction mitigation.
The record shows the commission heard the comments but did not vote on any change to the plat during the meeting. Any change to a recorded plat would require formal petition and follow the city's application process to the Planning Commission and Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
The residents provided their names and addresses on the record; no staff or commission members committed to specific next steps during the public comment portion.
