Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies annexation after neighbors raise drainage, flood concerns
Summary
After extended discussion and an executive-session review, the White House board voted to deny Resolution 26-05, an annexation request for a low-lying parcel near South Pinson Drive, following neighbors' concerns about flooding and requirements to meet elevation and stormwater standards.
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to deny Resolution 26-05, an ordinance that would have annexed a parcel near South Pinson Drive into the city. The item, which prompted detailed staff explanation and public comment, was revisited in executive session before the board approved a motion to deny the annexation.
Planning and Codes Director Seegis Clark described the property and the annexation proposal, saying one of the parcels is already inside the city and the other would be combined and brought into the city limits. Clark told the board owners must bring building sites up to the base flood elevation, submit elevation certificates and meet MS4/stormwater permitting and land-disturbance requirements before any construction could proceed. “They’ll have to adhere to all stormwater regulation,” Clark said, emphasizing that required engineering and permits are part of the process.
Neighbors raised repeated concerns about groundwater and persistent standing water near the cul-de-sac on South Pinson Drive. Resident Tyler Safer said groundwater had prevented an in-ground pool installation and described standing water that persisted for weeks after rain events. “If they put two houses there, the drainage has got to go somewhere, and it shouldn’t affect other people and cost me and my other neighbors money,” Safer said.
Owner Wanda Judkins, who was present, described a long-term plan to split the property into two family-owned parcels and said the plan could change over time. She said the intent was to create two parcels that meet the city’s minimum lot-size requirements. “It’s a five-year plan and things change,” Judkins said, noting the family-focused intent.
During discussion, board members and staff focused on technical questions: whether the site could perk, the direction and handling of runoff, and whether required elevations and detention would create runoff impacts to adjacent homes. Staff repeatedly said on-site drainage and any new road or drainage infrastructure were the responsibility of the property owner and that engineering reviews would be required as part of permitting.
The board later moved into executive session for legal advice, then reconvened and voted to deny the annexation. The motion to deny passed in open session; no further annexation action was taken on the parcel that night.
