Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies developer's request to rezone 1 acre for private family cemetery after homeowner objections
Summary
A developer sought to rezone roughly one acre in Maple Bench Estates for a private family cemetery, proposing about 100 plots; neighbors and several council members raised concerns about notice, property values and public purpose, and the council voted unanimously to deny the general-plan amendment and rezone.
The council considered a legislative request to amend the general plan from low-density residential to parks and to rezone about 1 acre of Lot 18 (34 South Troy Street) from RA-1C to OSP for a proposed private family cemetery. Sean (staff) said the proposal requires a general-plan amendment and rezone because RA-1C does not allow private cemeteries and described the applicant's concept plan, which included a small parking area and roughly 100 plots in the developer's revised concept.
Neighbors who spoke during the public hearing said they learned of the cemetery proposal only after homes were purchased and contended that inclusion of a cemetery after a recorded subdivision plat undermines buyer reliance and could affect property values. "We are shocked by this proposal... We purchased our home in good faith and with the reasonable expectation based on the recorded plat," Jenny Green told the council, asking elected officials to "preserve the integrity of the planning and development process." Her husband, Darren Green, said he paid for the lot expecting low traffic and privacy and urged the council to protect those expectations.
The applicant explained his site selection process and emphasized the parcel's limited visibility, steep surrounding topography and a state-regulated endowment requirement for perpetual maintenance. He said the proposal had been discussed with staff and the planning commission and that the cemetery would be fenced and gated with a maintenance endowment to meet state requirements. Trudy Gibby, who spoke on behalf of the family, said the cemetery was intended as a private family resting place and not a public business.
Council members debated the proposal's public purpose versus private benefit, the timing of the proposal relative to the recorded preliminary plat, and potential adverse impacts to adjacent property owners. Several council members noted that had the cemetery been included in the subdivision's original plat, the conversation would differ; they emphasized that rezones are legislative and require public-purpose justification. Council member Beck moved to deny the proposed amendment and rezone; the motion was seconded and carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
The council denied the general-plan amendment and rezone as presented. Staff and the applicant discussed the possibility of pursuing alternate, less-sensitive locations (including a previously considered site near Dogwood Drive) and the applicant indicated willingness to explore alternate sites or modified plans.
