Heath council denies Perry property rezoning after hours of public opposition

Heath City Council on Jan. 14 denied two zoning applications for a proposed 158.693‑acre subdivision (the Perry property), after lengthy public comment from residents who said the plan’s 110 lots, smaller footprints and street layout would undercut the community’s rural character and strain roads and schools.

Neighbors told the council they have repeatedly raised concerns about lot sizes and the visual similarity of the proposed homes. ‘‘These are tract homes — they’re all the same; they’ll directly hurt my property values,’’ said a resident from Blue Heron Lane. Several speakers said traffic on Ridge Road is already hazardous at peak hours and that adding roughly 110 homes would make conditions worse.

The developer submitted two separate applications: a planned‑development (PD) ordinance with a concept plan that included 21 acres of open space, trails and a pond, and a straight rezoning to SF‑43 (one‑acre minimum lots). Staff described changes to the PD concept during presentation, including a reduction in lot count, a trailhead and additional landscaping and tree‑preservation zones. Applicant representative Laura Hoffman said the proposal included one‑acre lots and preserved open space connected by 10‑foot trails.

But speakers disputed that the plan matched the comprehensive plan’s rural‑estate intent. ‘‘I read the comprehensive plan before buying here — it calls for large lots, open fields and low‑density housing,’’ said Andrea Woodworth, a resident who testified that the community prioritized ‘‘small‑town feel’’ and abundant open space. Other residents cited a lack of a full tree survey and said elevations and materials shown so far looked like a repeating template rather than a custom neighborhood.

After discussion, a council motion to deny the PD application (ZA202401) without prejudice carried. The council then considered the straight zoning request (ZA202403) and also voted to deny that application without prejudice. Minutes show both motions were seconded and passed unanimously; the record does not show any formal amendments or approvals of the concept plan.

What the council voted on

- ZA202401 (planned‑development rezoning and concept plan) — motion to deny without prejudice (approved by council). - ZA202403 (straight SF‑43 rezoning) — motion to deny without prejudice (approved by council).

Why it matters

The decisions keep the 158‑acre parcel in its existing agricultural zoning and leave open the possibility for the developer to return with revised plans. Neighbors and council members repeatedly referenced the city’s 2018 comprehensive plan and said keeping large lots, preserving open space and limiting monotony in home design are important to the community’s long‑term character.

The developer and staff indicated some concessions had been made to the concept plan (open‑space acreage, trails and landscape buffers), but residents said those changes did not address fundamental concerns about density, traffic and loss of canopy.

Next steps

Because the denials were without prejudice, the applicant may return with a revised application or pursue other, lawful routes to reconfigure the site. The council urged parties to continue dialogue about design, tree preservation and traffic mitigation.