Site icon The Observer

Proposed Auburn subdivision on hold pending CompPlan 2030

163-home development not compatible with current zoning, land use code

BY DANIEL SCHMIDT
FOR THE OBSERVER

AUBURN — A proposed 163-home subdivision in north Auburn is now indefinitely postponed after the developer withdrew several ordinances at Thursday night’s Auburn City Council meeting due to uncertainty.
That uncertainty comes as the city looks to update its CompPlan 2030 and future land use map. Proposed changes include new recommendations for appropriate land uses and densities for properties inside and outside city limits, where commercial development should be encouraged and the inclusion of updated data and maps.
Currently, the city’s future land use map designates the property as rural, allowing developers to build one single-family home on three acres. Without any changes, that would allow the developer to build a maximum of 17 homes on the 53.5 acre property located on W. Farmville Road between N. Donahue Drive and N. College Street.
As a result, the proposed development of 163 homes is incompatible with the property’s current zoning and the city’s land use code. If the city votes to annex the property and updates its future land use map, that property’s designation will change from rural to low-density residential, which would allow developers to build no more than four single-family homes per acre, or 214 total homes.
The council ultimately voted to postpone voting on any potential changes until its April 15 meeting. Ward 5 Council Member Sonny Moreman initially sought the delay, citing a need to give council members and the public more time to study the proposal.
Lee Tharp, a project engineer who represented the applicant, said the applicant needed more clarity about how those proposed changes could impact the project moving forward only after the council voted to approve or deny them.
“We were just hoping to have [those changes] finalized before we brought that before the council,” Tharp told the council. “I know that was an issue at the Planning Commission, [and] we were able to talk through that. But it just seemed like it would be a clearer path forward once you guys have decided on where that future land use plan stands.”
Before Tharp officially requested all three ordinances on the agenda be withdrawn completely, Ward 3 Council Member Beth Witten suggested the council go ahead and vote to annex the property since it fell within the city’s optimal boundary for annexation.
Moreman ultimately disagreed since the current property owner, who is not the developer, was not present at the meeting and did not explicitly make the request themselves.
“I don’t necessarily disagree with that logic, but my feeling is that if the property owner is not represented, it’s not customary or reasonable, I don’t think, to annex something that’s not requested,” Moreman said.
According to City Manager Megan McGowen Crouch, developers can seek annexation and re-zoning of properties if the property owners fill out an application of authorization, even if the property is not yet under legal contract.
City Planning Director Justice Wahid Cotton confirmed the application had the necessary legal paperwork from the property owner allowing the applicant to seek annexation and rezoning. He added developments cannot move forward without such documents if the developer does not yet own the property.
While there is no definitive timeline for the project to get back on track, Tharp expressed intent for the project to move forward once any uncertainties are resolved. To go before the council again for approval, the developer must represent the proposal to the Planning Commission.

In other business:

Exit mobile version