Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning 725 Stinson topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission denies request to rezone 725 Stinson Road after neighbors cite drainage and character concerns

Lucas Planning and Zoning Commission · September 12, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following testimony from neighbors and the applicant, the Lucas Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to deny a request to rezone 11.0438 acres at 725 Stinson Road from R-2 to R-1.5, citing the comprehensive plan mismatch and neighbor opposition.

The commission denied, by a 5-0 vote, a request to rezone 11.0438 acres at 725 Stinson Road from R‑2 to R‑1.5 after substantial public comment opposing a change to the area’s planned two‑acre character.

Jim and Lisa Pruitt, the applicants and long‑time residents, said their proposal would subdivide the parcel into mostly 1.8‑acre lots compatible with nearby Hickory Hill and argued the layout fits on‑site septic and tree cover. Jim Pruitt said the configuration would allow four buildable lots plus the home they would continue to occupy.

Multiple neighbors, however, urged the commission to preserve the comprehensive plan’s R‑2 designation. Charles Rockwell said Lucas residents “worked very, very hard on that comprehensive plan” and opposed a rezoning that would serve private convenience rather than community planning objectives. Love Casanova and other speakers listed drainage history on Hickory Hill, concerns about increased traffic and noise on Stinson Road, and potential impacts on property values.

Commissioners asked technical questions about whether 2‑acre lots were infeasible for development. The applicants said their lot ownership to the middle of the street and required access constrained buildable area and that a 2‑acre configuration would yield fewer buildable lots. After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny the rezoning; the motion passed 5‑0.