Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Growth Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Polk County to challenge city land swap under HB 26 47, citing non-contiguity and safety concerns
Summary
Resident David Pastor told the Polk County Board the city’s proposed urban growth boundary swap tied to “HB 26 47” is unlawful because the parcel the city seeks to add (area 1) is not contiguous; he also raised traffic and emergency-response safety concerns and asked the county to send an informal cease-and-desist letter.
David Pastor, a Polk County resident, told the Polk County Board of Commissioners during public comment that the city’s plan to swap land into the urban growth boundary under “HB 26 47” does not meet the law’s contiguity requirement.
“The HB 26 47 is very clear when it says that the areas to be swapped… the site itself must be contiguous with the urban growth boundary and the city limits,” Pastor said, showing a city-provided map and pointing to the area labeled “1.” He said the outlined site is separated from the urban growth boundary by roughly "about 65 to 85 feet" at its closest point and that the city is relying on a narrow rectangle of land — which Pastor described as roughly 800 by 200 feet (about 3.91 acres) — to claim contiguity.
Pastor also framed safety concerns for students and emergency services, saying the only road access would be Mistletoe Road (which becomes Church Street and connects to a narrow campus road named Stadium) and that emergency responders would need to travel roughly three miles from Independence to reach the site. He read an emailed response from state Representative Paul Evans that said he was “surprised” by the inclusion of some areas, and Pastor said he had asked Evans and Representative Anna Scharf to consider drafting legislation to preserve county review processes.
Pastor asked the county to send an informal letter to the city asking officials to “cease and desist on area 1” while the legal and planning issues are reviewed and documented. Chair acknowledged the comment and thanked Pastor; no formal county action on the request was taken during the meeting.
What happens next: Pastor said he planned to meet that afternoon with the city manager and mayor. The board did not vote on any specific action during the meeting; Pastor’s request for a county letter was entered as public comment for commissioners’ consideration.
