Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conway Ridge Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies Conway Ridge development agreement after tie and mayoral no
Summary
The Notus City Council voted 2–2 on approval of the Conway Ridge (Triple Dot) development agreement; Mayor David Porterfield cast the deciding no vote and the motion failed. Council later moved to continue discussion to a date certain.
Get email alerts on the Conway Ridge Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Notus City Council on June 16 debated and ultimately denied approval of a development agreement for the Conway Ridge subdivision (Triple Dot Development) after a tied council vote and a mayoral tie-breaking no.
City Planner Antonio Conti reviewed the development agreement page by page, summarizing commitments such as three vehicle entrances (including a revised plan addressing earlier crosswalk concerns to and from the school), upgrades to Notus Road with curb, gutter and sidewalk, looped water lines tying into Kremmwood, and a developer-built well subject to a latecomers agreement. Conti noted the developer did not attend the hearing to answer questions.
Council President Steve Ahlborn moved to approve the agreement "including all the notes by the City Planner and Attorney amending it and grant authority for it to be presented to the Mayor and signed by the Mayor." Hartsock seconded. The council vote was: Ahlborn — yes; Hartsock — yes; Krasowski — no; Conner — no. Mayor David Porterfield cast a subsequent "no" vote, and the motion was denied.
During debate, Councilman Devin Krasowski raised specific operational concerns about sewer capacity, saying he was not comfortable with proceeding before those questions were resolved. Councilwoman Lupita Conner also said she wanted more time to review outstanding issues. City Attorney Ben Layman advised the council to resume discussion promptly to reduce potential legal exposure to the city from the developer.
After the denial, Ahlborn moved and Krasowski seconded a motion to continue the development-agreement discussion to a date certain; that motion carried (Ahlborn yes, Krasowski yes, Hartsock no, Conner yes). The council did not set the new date in the minutes. The developer was not present at the meeting to respond to council or public questions.
