Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and councilors push back on changing arterial street definitions; committee considers splitting proposal
Summary
At its Jan. 21 meeting the Business and Economic Development Committee heard widespread public opposition to a proposed Land Development Code change that would add Ohio Street to the major-arterials list while removing State Street from the minor-arterials list; Councilor Mallar proposed amending the measure to drop the Ohio Street addition.
At a Jan. 21 meeting of the Business and Economic Development Committee, Development Director Anne Krieg presented a continued proposal to modify the Land Development Code definition of arterial streets, including adding Ohio Street to the major-arterials list and removing State Street from the minor-arterials list.
The proposal drew consistent public opposition during the public-comment period. Joe Pratt, Jeffrey Fournier, John Dionne, Paul Passman, Jamie Boyle and Meredith Smith each addressed the committee to oppose the change; Mary Tedesco‑Schnecke said a large number of residents were opposed. John Schnecke said he opposed adding Ohio Street to the major-arterials definition but supported removing State Street from the minor-arterials definition, reflecting mixed public sentiment.
Why it matters: definitions of arterial and minor arterial streets affect permitted uses, traffic rules and potential zoning outcomes for properties along those corridors. Councilors said they needed clearer information about likely impacts before taking action.
Committee response focused on separating the two proposed edits. Councilor Mallar asked that the committee amend the proposal to remove the proposed addition of Ohio Street while retaining the removal of State Street from the minor-arterials definition. Development Director Krieg recommended a procedural approach for making that amendment and clarified what could be acted on at this committee meeting; Chair Leonard and Councilor Carson confirmed the next steps and scheduling. Councilor Beck asked whether an applicant who originally proposed a recreational facility on Ohio Street could instead seek a zone change to allow the use; Krieg replied that a zone‑change application was an available avenue.
No final vote on the arterial-definition change was recorded at the meeting; the committee discussed an amendment to split the package and clarified the process for doing so. The item will return to the committee or be placed before the full Council for further action after staff and members resolve the amendment and any scheduling questions.
