Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to reject Katy Lane rezoning; council leaves hearing open and tables the ordinance
Summary
At a public hearing, neighbors told the Pacific Board of Aldermen that a proposed rezoning for parcels on Old Grey Summit and Katy Lane would increase density, strain infrastructure and pose traffic and health concerns; the board left the hearing open and tabled the ordinance at the applicant’s request to May 5.
The City of Pacific Board of Aldermen opened a public hearing on April 21 on a proposed map amendment to rezone parcels at 1854 Old Grey Summit Road and several Katy Lane addresses from nonurban zoning to R1B single‑family residential. The board left the hearing open to allow additional comment and later tabled the measure to the May 5 meeting at the applicant’s request.
Several nearby residents spoke against the rezoning as it was presented. Don Pritchett, who said he was speaking on behalf of family members who live adjacent to the property, said the neighborhood is characterized by large lots and that the proposed small‑lot subdivision would “represent a significant departure from the established character.” He also alleged the developer had visited an older neighbor multiple times and attempted to gain access for sewer work, saying that alleged conduct was “deeply troubling.”
Kevin Doyle, who said planning and zoning previously voted the proposal down and urged the board to do the same, said rezoning to R1B could permit an estimated 30 homes on the parcel and would be too dense for the area. Dennis O’Malley, a property owner east of the site, raised concerns about locating housing too close to railroad tracks, citing emissions and child safety.
The mayor noted an applicant request to postpone final action and the attorney advised the board that it could keep the public hearing open to May 5 so citizens could speak again. A motion to table the bill was approved and the item is scheduled to return on the May 5 agenda.
What’s next: the hearing remains open; the board will consider the ordinance again on May 5. Citizens who spoke requested the board weigh neighborhood character, traffic safety and developer conduct in its decision.
