Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Annexation Kazer Mesic topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council declines Kazer/Calvert Mesic annexation after split committee recommendation

Uniontown City Council · May 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council rejected Resolution 18-76 to accept the Kazer/Calvert Mesic annexation petition (approximately 20 acres; 2026 valuation ~ $5,000,000) after committee discussion and a split recommendation; staff had proposed modifying the petition to include additional parcels.

Uniontown The City Council voted to decline Resolution 18-76, an annexation petition that staff described as roughly 20 acres and carrying an estimated 2026 County Assessor valuation near $5,000,000.

City staff explained the city received a notice of intent to annex on March 19 and recommended modifying the initial two-parcel petition to include nine additional properties (11 parcels total) to make the city boundary more regular. The staff report noted the area would adopt the city's future land use and zoning designation (R-2, low-density residential) and that water and sewer are available along Roosevelt Avenue.

In committee, members expressed concerns about staff capacity and recent development activity on that side of town; the Community & Economic Development committee split on whether to move forward and one committee member said they would vote for the resolution but would do so in opposition at the council vote (reflecting the split recommendation). The council moved to vote and the motion to approve Resolution 18-76 failed on a voice vote; the mayor announced the annexation did not pass.

The failure leaves the petitioners able to pursue the statutory annexation process, including boundary review board procedures and any future modified petitions, but the council did not accept the city's proposed modification at this meeting.