Live Oak council holds hearing on annexing 13.74 acres; residents warn of flooding and traffic

The City of Live Oak council opened a public hearing on the first reading of Ordinance 1532, a request to annex 13.74 acres of a roughly 30-acre property so the owner can file a single development application with the city rather than separate county and city applications.

George G. Reeves, an attorney representing Live Oak Investments, told the council the hearing concerned only annexation, not a development permit, and said annexation would let the city and its staff review the whole property at once. "All we're here today about is is whether or not the city is willing to annex that 13.74 acres," Reeves said, adding the owner would not use annexation as a vehicle to pursue other land-use rights and is willing to record a restrictive covenant to that effect.

Members of the public strongly disagreed with the annexation as a procedural step toward future development. David Chandler, who identified himself for the record, said the packet map shows much of the 13.74 acres sits at a mean elevation of about 86.2 feet and that areas of the annexation site are roughly 10 feet lower than nearby homes; Chandler warned the move would amount to "annexing a swamp" and said it could worsen drainage and emergency-vehicle access near the HCA emergency room and National Guard Armory. "The annexation will explode vehicular traffic along the street," Chandler said.

Other neighbors echoed those concerns. Jean Kish of Coliseum Avenue said existing congestion is already severe and urged the council to vote no. William Payne said he favors development in principle but called this annexation "a penultimate move to something else," saying he and his neighbors oppose the likely direction and density of future proposals. Phil Royce recounted prior flooding at his property on 133rd and 136th, saying additional density would increase harm.

At the hearing the city attorney clarified that statutory criteria for annexation focus on geometric and ownership requirements — compactness, avoidance of enclaves and owner consent — and are distinct from later land-use reviews that address traffic and drainage. The city attorney also noted staff review indicated the technical statutory prerequisites for annexation appeared to be met. Reeves told the council that when the developer later files a development application, it will include traffic and drainage studies and that the proposal would be refined at that time.

Comments also touched on state housing policy: Reeves acknowledged local concern about the Live Local Act and said the applicant would be willing to put a restrictive covenant on the property to avoid invoking rights under that statute. A late commenter identified only as Joseph characterized the attorney's timing argument — that annexation would preserve future tax revenue — as a "lawyer trick."

The public comment period closed after multiple speakers. No final vote on annexation was recorded during the hearing; the matter remained part of the council's first-reading proceedings for Ordinance 1532 and will return to the council for decision at a later date or the next required step in the ordinance process.