Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Batching Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amarillo commission postpones rezoning for Triangle Drive batching plant after neighbor concerns
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission postponed a rezoning request that would allow a concrete/asphalt batching plant near Triangle Drive, ordering an independent valuation/impact study after a nearby property owner raised health and property‑value concerns. Staff will re‑notice the hearing when rescheduled.
The Amarillo Planning and Zoning Commission on May 18 postponed consideration of rezoning case 202658Z — a specific‑use rezoning to allow an asphalt or concrete batching plant on Lot 2, Block 166 (near Triangle Drive and Lakeside Drive) — and asked the applicant to return with an independent valuation or impact study on surrounding property values.
Arthur Dyke, a nearby property owner who said his lot directly abuts the proposed site, urged the commission to deny asphalt operations, citing odors and health effects. “I googled it and asphalt, it causes cancer, hard breathing,” Dyke said, adding that an operating plant would limit his ability to develop his property and reduce its value. Staff confirmed the parcel is in the airport noise overlay (Noise Zone 1) and said a drainage report and building‑permit review would be required before construction.
Commissioners questioned what conditions could be attached to a specific‑use permit (SUP). Staff member Brady told the commission SUPs can include mitigation measures similar to planned‑development conditions — for example, fencing, landscape buffering or a restriction that would allow only concrete batching and prohibit asphalt if the commission chose that path. The applicant’s representative said the business would pursue a state clean‑air permit, install dust controls and pave and fence the site. “We’re gonna turn it to a parking lot with the material to keep the dust down and put a fence up,” the applicant said.
At the end of the discussion Commissioner Cindy moved to postpone the case until the applicant could provide a valuation/impact study; Brady seconded. The motion passed 5–1. One commissioner said they would have approved the request as presented, hoping the parties could negotiate mitigation, but the majority favored the postponement to gather more data. Staff said the postponement will trigger new mailed notices to the public when the hearing is rescheduled.
