Addressing Perry’s upcoming hearing

On Monday, April 12, citizens of the Kathleen community gathered in front of the Perry Planning and Zoning Commission to express their vehement disapproval and concerns of the possible annexation and rezoning of the parcel located on the corner of Danny Carpenter Drive and Sandefur Road. Currently zoned as C-R1 (county owned residential zone), an out-of-town applicant is requesting it to be changed to C-2 (city owned commercial zone). The informational hearing resulted in the members of the commission recommending denying the approval. The Houston County Commissioners also discussed the topic at their recent meeting on Tuesday, April 20, and concurred to recommend denial of the approval as well. However, recommendations are only just that, and the city council will be holding a public hearing on the matter on May 4 for the first reading.

Bryan Wood, Community Development Director for the city of Perry, informed The Journal that though the public outcry was notable—garnering over 900 signatures in a petition conducted by Jason and Sara Kliethermes—the council still has the final authority of the outcome. 

“City council has the ultimate decision,” Wood shared. He went on to explain the process on how the council makes the final decision. “They weigh the comments and the recommendations of the planning commission and the county commissioners in regard to the annexation. They also take into consideration the staff reports and comments received at the hearing… Just because there’s a recommendation one way doesn’t necessarily mean that’ll be the outcome of the vote.”

The vote of action for the matter will not take place until the second reading of the application. Doing so allows the council time to process all the information gathered at the hearing before making the final call.

Concerned citizens brought up many points as to why they believe the parcel should not be rezoned. Reasons for the disapproval include a shared view of likely inconsistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, implying that the possible rezoning would be considered “spot zoning;” the lack of a site plan in accordance to 2-2.2(B) of the city ordinance, concern for vehicular and pedestrian traffic issues with the increased opportunity of collisions due to Mossy Creek Elementary in such close proximity; the threat that rezoning the parcel could present a gateway for commercial development of the community; the legality of the initial application.

Wood provided insight and a city staff’s perspective on much of the concerns addressed. Regarding the questions raised about the legality of the application, he explained that the application was actually not outdated like previously accused. “It’s the current form. In the past, the city–for annexations–had used a rezoning application for annexation and rezoning.” He shared that approximately three or four years ago, a separate annexation form was created and that as part of the annexation, the property must be zoned to a city zoning classification.

For a rezoning application, there are 13 criteria or standards, and in an annexation application, there are six. Wood addressed the proposed issue of the applicant’s application, sharing, “The applicant submitted a rezoning application for the annexation. We had him revise the second page of the application to address the six criteria for the zoning application. That’s why there were two second-pages in the information. The six criteria you need to address for annexation are six of the 13 that you would address for rezoning. …We have, since that meeting, advised the applicant that he does need to submit the correct application form and complete all information on it.”

Wood went on to reveal that the ordinance cited regarding the requirement of site plans is not normally followed by the city. According to Wood, the city has conducted business differently than what is outlined in the ordinance. “People request zoning changes or annexations into the city without knowing how the property is going to be developed. Without knowing that, you can’t have a site plan.” Appearing to be a direct violation of the ordinance, Wood admitted, “That’s a conflict between our ordinance and how we normally conduct business. That’s something that we need to change in the ordinance because you’re not always going to have a site plan to do these kinds of requests.”

Wood expressed that he doesn’t believe rezoning the parcel will lead to further commercial growth in the area. “This is a unique situation because of the property size and shape [and] because of the location at the intersection.” He continued, “The amount of traffic that is there could likely support the type of development and the type of uses for office commercial.”

Wood explained that the original request was for C-2, general commercial. According to him, the staff felt “it was too intense for that location, but (we) also recognized that it wouldn’t be suited for single family residential.” This led to the recommendation of office commercials, defending against aforementioned arguments that the size of the property will limit the intensity of the commercial zone.

Ultimately, the community development staff still recommends moving forward with the rezoning and annexation even though Wood admitted, “In this particular case, this owner found this piece of property and bought it with the expectation that he could get it rezoned and make some money off of it. He wants to increase its value so he can sell it.” 

The fates of the parcel and the hopes for the citizens both lie in the hands of the council. According to Wood, decisions are meant to be based on the standards and criteria of the application, not necessarily majority citizen input.

The public hearing for the zoning and annexation of the proposed parcel will take place on Tuesday, May 4 at the city council meeting located at the Perry Events Center on 1121 Macon Road at 6:00 p.m.

HHJ News