Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Warrenton officials to revisit Heath property annexation and rezoning
Summary
Three residents told the Board of Aldermen they received no direct notice of the Heath property's annexation and rezoning to light industrial and urged the city to reconsider or limit the rezoning, citing safety and notice concerns and referencing a statute noted in the transcript as “71 0 1 2.”
Several residents addressed the Board of Aldermen on Oct. 1 urging the city to reconsider a recent annexation and the rezoning of the Heath property to light industrial.
"I am deeply concerned about the manner of which this process was conducted as well as its potential to impact my family's quality of life," said Justin Roberts of 21503 Leo Lane, who told the board he and other adjacent property owners received no direct notice and questioned whether publication in a newspaper alone satisfied notice requirements. Roberts referenced Missouri law in the transcript as "71 0 1 2" and requested that the annexation and rezoning be revisited.
Cheryl Roberts, of 21347 Leo Lane, said the property was annexed and rezoned without direct notice to adjoining owners and described potential safety concerns, including proximity to an ammonia pipeline and increased heavy traffic on a narrow gravel road that serves multiple households. "We find that the Heath property bordering on two sides has been annexed into the city, and that the zoning changed to light industrial," she said, adding that neighbors did not receive mailed notices she believes should have been circulated.
Pam Bishop, who said she owns a nearby horse farm, told the board she previously paid to have mailed notices sent for other permits and questioned why neighbors were not listed or notified for the Heath property: "It isn't a courtesy when someone's having to put the money out," she said, urging that neighboring property owners be included in decisions that directly affect them.
None of the speakers requested or recorded a formal vote; they urged the board and planning staff to review the annexation process, reexamine whether notice was adequate and consider limiting industrial zoning to portions of the property if rezoning remains. The board did not take immediate action on the public comments during this meeting, but officials noted the concerns and acknowledged a future joint session with Planning & Zoning was scheduled for Oct. 22.
