Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Landuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise property-record and Lakeshore housing concerns; city staff says Lakeshore applicant withdrew support request
Summary
At the hearing of visitors, a resident said he has waited years for a certificate of occupancy and reported property-access and permit disputes; another resident urged the city not to provide a letter of support for proposed Lakeshore low‑income housing. City staff later told council the applicant withdrew its request for a city support letter.
During the Feb. 4 hearing of visitors at the Waco City Council meeting, two members of the public raised matters for council attention and city staff provided a clarification in response to one.
Ethan (spelled in the record as Ethan Harry) told the council he has experienced a prolonged delay in obtaining a certificate of occupancy for property at 1044 Chestnut. He said he first requested a copy of the certificate on July 31, 2017, and that the city’s response took years; he said a city letter later claimed he had signed documents the resident disputed. He said a sewer line was shown crossing from 1044 to an adjacent property and that the planning department approved a plat or site plan in violation of a regulation he cited (Ordinance 28‑90 of 1986). He said the situation has cost him about $3,000 to address and described a dry approach installed in an alleyway that he considers hazardous. He asked the council why the issues had not been fixed and said he felt singled out; he concluded his comment by saying he had been denied access to his property for “2,744 days.”
Kathy Holloman of 101 Morning View Circle spoke against the city providing a letter of approval supporting a proposed low‑income housing project on the Lyle Clark tract along Lakeshore Drive. Holloman said the area lacks groceries, restaurants and schools and described much of north Waco as “essentially a food desert.” She said the city’s public investments in nearby recreation and commercial projects made the corridor suitable for families and expressed concern that low‑income housing could negatively affect neighborhood crime and property values. Holloman also raised questions about the Vicino Group, which she described as an out‑of‑state developer, and whether the local nonprofit Friends for Life and community member Inez Russell had actively supported the project at public hearings.
In response to Holloman’s remarks, Galen Price, director of community services, told the council (referring to discussion at the March 3 work session) that the applicant for the Lakeshore site had withdrawn its request for a city letter of support and that the remaining applications in the tax‑credit program packet do not include the Lakeshore site. Price said the applicant can proceed in the larger process without a city letter of support.
No formal council action followed either public comment during the meeting. Staff said they would follow up where appropriate; the council closed the hearing of visitors and moved to council comments.
