Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 100 Eastside topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors’ flooding and tree concerns lead planning commission to deny rezoning at 100 Eastside Drive
Summary
After neighbors raised flooding, traffic and tree-preservation concerns, the White House Planning Commission voted to deny a developer’s request to rezone about 1.05 acres at 100 Eastside Drive from R-20 to C-1.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 100 Eastside topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The White House Planning Commission voted Feb. 9 to deny a request to rezone about 1.05 acres at 100 Eastside Drive from low-density residential (R-20) to central business (C-1), after several nearby residents urged the commission to preserve the neighborhood’s character and an old pecan tree.
At a reopened public hearing, residents said the narrow, roughly 16-foot-wide Eastside Drive cannot safely absorb new commercial access. “Eastside Drive is narrow… it's only 16 feet wide,” said Roger Banker, who identified himself as living at 106 East Side Drive, adding that existing drainage already sends water across and behind his property. Liesel Smith, a neighbor at 204 Eastside Drive, said a pecan tree on the site was measured at about 90 feet tall and 89 feet wide and described it as locally significant, urging the city to protect it rather than allow a commercial driveway there.
Developer representative Josh Line of Clover Engineering told the commission his client provided a conceptual plan for a small retail strip center and that a full site-plan review would follow any rezoning approval. Commissioners and neighbors questioned whether the entrance would be placed on Eastside Drive or on Highway 31 W and pressed for drainage analysis. “When we do review the site plan, drainage is a key component of our review,” a planning staff member said during the discussion.
Commissioner discussion emphasized traffic, stormwater and tree preservation. After questions and public remarks, a commissioner moved to deny the rezoning request; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.
The denial means the property will remain zoned R-20 for now; future commercial proposals would require a new application and additional review. The commission noted site-plan and drainage concerns would be evaluated in any subsequent application process.
