West Columbia citizens angry over development in Hook Avenue area
By Benjamin Higgins Higginsb2@yahoo.com
Call to Order

A joint public hearing of the West Columbia City Council and West Columbia Planning Commission was held May 6, 2008 to discuss a map amendment proposal to rezone portions of the Hook Avenue area from R- 4 (Low- Density Residential) to PUD- R (Planned Unit Development-Residential). All members of the West Columbia Planning Commission were present: Chairman William C. Etheredge, William J. "Buck" Buchanan, Elizabeth "Liz" Deas, Julie Huffman, Preston Cantrell, Harold Prater, and Billy Lynn Williams. Several members of the West Columbia City Council, including Mayor Bobby Horton, were also in attendance. Chairman Etheredge called the hearing to order at 6 pm.

Opening Remarks

Chairman Etheredge explained to the standing- room- only crowd made up mostly of those in opposition to the measure each had 15 minutes to speak. In addition, each side got one five-minute rebuttal.

Presentation of proposal

West Columbia Zoning Administrator Brian Carter explained that the plan allowed great oversight of the types of homes that could be built in the Hook Avenue area. Carter noted the developer, Landmark Homes International, wanted to build about 102 homes on undeveloped properties in the area. Carter emphasized that by classifying the properties as Planned Unit Development- Residential, the city could have greater oversight and more effectively offer services. He compared current structures in the area to the proposed homes and noted that Landmark Homes International intended to build structures which reflected the architecture of the existing neighborhood.

Carter then introduced David Tuttle, a representative of Landmark Homes International. Tuttle touted his organization's work with the city of Columbia and described the planned houses being in the "traditional neighborhood development" style.

Public comments and rebuttals

Bill Scott, a member of the area around Hook Avenue where the proposed development would be located, gave an impassioned speech against the proposal. Scott presented the commission and council with a petition against the development signed by 98 Hook Avenue area residents. Scott felt that Landmark Homes International was building "a neighborhood within a neighborhood" and also argued the Hook Avenue area already had significant traffic problems. Scott's remarks were warmly received by the majority of the audience, who clapped loudly several times throughout the speech.

David Tuttle attempted to rebut Scott's remarks by noting that by his proposal provided strong standards for future homes, and residents of the Hook Avenue area could not avoid development.

A school teacher came up to rebut Tuttle's remarks and noted that the proposed development would negatively impact schools in the area.

The teacher was followed by Hook Avenue area resident Jimmy Senn. Senn used his portion of the opposition's rebuttal time to explain that his neighbors had not been properly notified about an earlier meeting in the community about the proposal. Tuttle then tried to defend Landmark Homes International's position in the middle of Senn's speech. This led to some significant back and forth between the audience and Tuttle. After the commission allowed Senn to continue and Scott time to make further remarks for rebuttal, the public comments were closed, as each side had used up its rebuttal time.

Adjournment

Commissioners asked several questions of Brian Carter. During these remarks, a woman from the audience stood up and attempted to explain her position. After letting her go on for several minutes, Chairman Etheredge reminded her that public comments were closed. Following remarks by a commissioner expressing concern about the proposal, Chairman Etheredge, in consultation with Carter, asked the commission to postpone a vote on the measure until their regular May 22nd meeting. The commission agreed, and the hearing was adjourned at 7 pm. Many members of the public yelled the vote should take place immediately, but the decision to adjourn had already been made. Following adjournment, many citizens left the meeting room to continue discussing the proposal.