The Maysville City Council approved a rezoning and annexation request dealing with about 45 acres on Highway 52 and West Freeman Drive at a Dec. 11 meeting, but not before some controversy between citizens during a public hearing held prior to the vote.
Gary Adams asked to rezone the front part of his property located on Highway 52 for future development. A portion of that property (6.51 acres) was already annexed into the city, according to the city clerk. Last week’s action brings the total amount of property the applicant has annexed at that address to 56.57 acres, which are all zoned C2.
Adams said there are no plans for development. He said he applied so that the property could, “be available to anybody who would decide to come into the county or into the city for development — to have a place to go for C2.”
“That’s really the only plans I have for it,” he added.
Because Adams hadn’t been approached by a developer, there was no recommendation by the planning board to the council, as is required by the land use plan, prior to the vote. However, some people felt like the application was incomplete without a plan.
“The city had the right to go ahead and act,” city attorney Jody Cooley said.
During the hearing, city clerk Barbara Thomas reported that the absence of a recommendation was “due to lack of information.”
The vote for rezoning 18.19 acres passed 3-1. The vote to annex 44.89 acres passed 4-0.
Citizens’ Comments
During the public hearing, two people spoke in favor of the application.
“Not to have control of what is sitting up there would be a detriment to the city,” Jerry Baker said. “The revenue off of what may come up there to this city, well, that funds the taxpayers’ wallet. I’m a taxpayer. So, when you make this decision, you need to put all of that into consideration. Mr. Adams has proved to me that is a good law-abiding citizen and I don’t think he would let something come up there that shouldn’t be here. If we don’t as a city have control over it, then we’ve lost it.”
The other citizen to speak in favor of the application was Catherine Daniel, who said, “It will benefit Maysville. I think we need it for the growth possibility for the future.”
Those who spoke in opposition of the rezoning did so on the grounds that the applicant didn’t follow procedure.
Lynn Villyard said the request troubled her on many levels, in particular that the city’s planning and zoning board could not make a recommendation to the city.
“The ordinance requirements were not met so there is no way that the city really can make an assessment as to whether or not this is a beneficial thing for the city, because we just have no idea what possibly might go there and how it will impact the community as a whole and particularly the people who live so close to the residential area,” said Villeyard. “It is a bit of an illusion that we would actually have control there. We would be obligated to approve that. A lot of things that could come in there that would not be desirable, and I think it could have a negative impact on our community. I think it’s a very real risk that it could change the very character of our town and I just feel that it’s very risky.”
Dave Turner, who stood up to speak in opposition, said he was “kind of in favor and kind of not in favor.”
Turner said he felt that the council needed to follow the procedures that are set up.
Mayor Richard Presley, following the closing of the public hearing, asked the council if there were further questions or legal questions concerning the requests.
Councilman Charlie Howington asked Adams if there had been any interest about developing the property. Adams said no one had approached him and there was nothing at all in the works in terms of development.
Councilmember Clyde “Junior” Hardy asked which ordinance the council did not follow.
Attorney Jody Cooley explained: “The zoning ordinance requires submission of certain information with the zoning application, but the zoning officer has the authority to declare an application proper even though it doesn’t contain all the information that’s required if, in fact, such information simply doesn’t exist. And so, the council has asked me to determine whether or not the matter’s proper and I believe that it is. That is not to challenge the discretion or the judgment of the planning commission. The planning commission made a judgment that they thought the city council ought to hear. I do believe that this council can act on this application under the provision that certain information that is required to be submitted simply does not exist because there are no plans for the property at this point in time.”
Howington added that he had spoken with several people, including adjoining property owners, who said that “the positives outweigh the negatives… they don’t have a problem with it.”
Prior to the vote, council member Scott Harper said he favors seeing the town grow.
“I want to see it grow in the right kind of ways,” he said. “I agree with Mr. Turner that a man works and pays for his land, then he ought to be able to do what he wants to with it. He’s worked hard, he’s earned a right to it.”
After Harper’s comment, Howington made a motion to approve Adams’ request to rezone the 18.3 acres. Kathy Bush seconded the motion. The vote passed 3-1, with Harper opposed. Concerning the annexation of 44.89 acres, Howington made the motion and Hardy seconded. The vote passed 4-0.
