Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The LaGrange City Council has approved a contentious annexation into the city connected to a large housing development in the Big Springs community.

A housing developer requested to annex a 15.7-acre parcel into the city to allow for a second entrance into a development on a much larger 118-acre parcel already in the city.

The developer plans a multi-phase housing development that would bring 300-plus single-family houses into the city on the 118 acres off of Stewart Road. Because of the size of the development, a secondary entrance and exit are required, so the developer is requesting an adjacent 15-acre property be annexed into the city to build another road into the development and combine the properties.  

The developer requested the change because they would like both properties in the city so they could get sewer service for the smaller lot. The City of LaGrange provides water for some county residents but does not provide sewer service outside the city. 

Several residents voiced concerns over the development, ranging from traffic and safety to watershed issues.

City staff noted that, while the requested Traditional Neighborhood Residential (TN-R) zoning would allow for upwards of 30 additional houses compared to the county’s Suburban Single-Family Medium Density Residential zoning, the vast majority of the new homes will come from the larger 118-acre tract which is already in the city and zoned for the proposed homes. The developer also does not need to annex the smaller parcel into the city to build the second entrance.

“The developer could certainly put this road in order to open up Phase 2 of the development project without the property being annexed and rezoned. But if that were to occur, there are some potential shortcomings or pitfalls from a public safety service delivery standpoint, when that road is put in. If the property is not annexed and rezoned, then it would be very difficult for a dispatcher, police officer, sheriff’s deputy or fire services to determine whose jurisdiction it is because we wouldn’t assign one road name for the part that’s in the city and a different road name for the county portion,” City Planner Mark Kostial said.

During the earlier work session, Council Member Leon Childs expressed concerns over the lack of a traffic study and engineering study for the watershed issues, which are currently underway but have not been completed. Childs suggested tabling the issue until the studies could be completed. 

In the work session, Mayor Jim Arrington suggested zoning the property as Estate Residential (ES-R) rather than TN-R, which would only allow one home per acre, similar to its current county zoning.

During the regular meeting Tuesday evening, the council approved the annexation request in a split vote, with Council Members Nathan Gaskin, Tom Gore, Mark Mitchell and Darby Pippin voting in favor, and Leon Childs and Quay Boddie opposed.

For the rezoning vote, Childs attempted to make a motion to table the vote but did so after the zoning motion was made and seconded, so the tabling vote was not allowed.

After some discussion, Pippin made a motion to introduce a substitute zoning ordinance that would zone the property as Suburban Single-Family Residential (SU-R). Pippin said the change would limit the number of houses on the 15.7-acre tract but not be so restrictive as ES-R zoning.

“TN-R is our most dense of the neighborhoods. As far as the uses, they’re roughly the same. But because of the area around here and the public comments, we were considering going to an estate size instead, which would also be an acre lot,” Pippin said. “I think that the Suburban, Single-Family Residential provides less density than the TN-R, but not so much that it’s restrictive to the developer.” 

“I think that it’s important that we are really cognizant of our need for housing, and any change or reduction in the density makes the development more expensive, makes the houses more expensive. It’s for that reason that I just could not go with the acre-size lots that would reduce it from potentially 35 or 40 on this parcel to maybe 15,” Pippin said.

The votes to introduce the substitute ordinance and then adopt it were voted on similar grounds with Childs and Boddie again in opposition and Gaskin, Gore, Mitchell and Pippin in favor.