Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Master Plan Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton council punts decision on Laurel Canyon master-plan change after residents object
Summary
A public hearing on a request to remove a condition requiring a water tank and build two homes in the cul-de-sac island at Laurel Canyon drew strong opposition; the council will take the matter up at its April 17 meeting.
A public hearing before the Canton City Council on April 3 drew a crowded turnout as an applicant sought to amend a master-plan condition that long called for a water tank in the center of a cul‑de‑sac at Laurel Vista Drive in the Horizon at Laurel Canyon subdivision.
The applicant, John Gaskin, said Ballantree PMC Laurel LLP requested the master-plan amendment (case MPA 2502-001) to remove Condition 40, which had required construction of a water tank, and to allow two single‑family lots in the cul‑de‑sac island instead. Gaskin asked the council to table the request and return at the next public hearings to allow additional meetings with residents and city staff.
The proposal prompted multiple residents to speak in opposition. Jeremy Warner, president of the Laurel Canyon Homeowners Association, said the island has been treated as common green space and that homeowners bought with an expectation of that open area. Heather Collins, who said she represents residents across Laurel Canyon, cited inconsistent water pressure at the top of the hill, potential loss of views and property‑value concerns, and said many homeowners were unaware the developer planned homes in the island.
Planning staff explained the vote before council would be on a master‑plan amendment; the property’s zoning would remain Plan Development Mixed Use (PDMU). Council members asked staff to obtain what information purchasers were given at the time of sale and to clarify the status of the original development agreement and any expired conditions.
No final action was taken on April 3. Council closed the hearing and scheduled the matter to be considered at the April 17 council meeting so the applicant and staff can address outstanding resident concerns and documentation.
Residents and the applicant also discussed whether Condition 40 and related development‑agreement obligations expired after financial and ownership changes in 2015, a point Gaskin raised as part of his request to strike the condition. Councilmembers repeatedly urged clarity on what purchasers were told at sale and on the city’s records about the requirement for the water tank.
The council did not vote on the amendment during the April 3 hearing; the item remains pending with a next consideration date of April 17.
