Conflict of interest question raised at council meeting

Following allegations of special treatment and possible conflict of interest, the Whitehouse City Council tabled a request for rezoning and consideration of a preliminary subdivision plat at its regular meeting Tuesday night.

Members voted unanimously to redress the conflict of interest issue in executive session at next month's council meeting following Lee Wilson's remarks during a public hearing on the proposed rezoning and development.

Stephanie Rollings of Planning Concepts presented the preliminary site plan for Wakefield Farms on behalf of property owners Andrew and Jan Bellefeuille, who sought a change in zoning from General Industrial District to Single Family Residential - Planned Development for a seven-acre tract of land, and Agricultural to Single Family Residential for approximately 13 acres, both located on Railroad Avenue.

Mrs. Bellefeuille is vice chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee which reviewed the requests and recom- mended council approval. Mr. Wilson charged that P&Z's approval of the rezoning and proposed development reflected unfair treatment since a similar proposal on his behalf was rejected by the commission in September.

"Our project was turned down for not following the master plan," said Wilson, referring to the city's recently adopted Vision 2020, a comprehensive plan for growth and development. "It seems a little strange for a member of P&Z to be the first to come up and not be in agreement with the master plan."

"I'm for what's good for Whitehouse, and I think this project is good for Whitehouse and you should find a way to approve it, but fairness is the thing," said Wilson. "The P&Z members should be treated like everyone else."

Wilson was one of the property owners in the proposed development for Bain Place Townhome Addition, which went before the P&Z Commission on Sept. 5.

The areas involved were designated General Business, Single Family Residential and Multi-Family; townhome developers asked for a change in zoning to Multi-Family Planned Development.

Members of P&Z, including Bellefeuille, criticized the development for not following the city's master plan, although the commission also expressed concerns about traffic near Wildcat Stadium. At the Sept. 12 city council meeting, P&Z recommended not to approve the plan, but council referred the matter back to the commission, instructing both parties to work together for a solution.

"I think it would be an act of futility," said Wilson, indicating that there have not been any further discussions. He said felt he did not get a fair hearing the first time; Mayor Jake Jacobson asked if inconsistent might be a better word than fair.

Councilmember Dale Moran, who made the motion to send the matter back to P&Z at the Sept. 12 meeting, apologized to Mr. Wilson and commended him for his generosity in appearing before the council.

In other matters, councilmember Mike Adams stressed the need for quicker solutions to the city's water issues. City Manager Ronny Fite reported on a letter from the City of Tyler designating Nov. 1 as the cut-off date for Whitehouse to receive water since the two parties failed to agree on contract renewal terms.

Despite the city's active and upcoming water wells, Adams felt that output would not be sufficient to meet the city's demands without water from Tyler.

He urged council to proceed with pipeline development for receiving water from Lake Striker.

Council also approved an ordinance calling for a bond election on May 12. The city is seeking general obligation bonds in the amount of $3 million for park development with a road running within the park and to Hillcreek Drive.

Members debated including full construction of the road in light of citizen concerns about drawing unwanted elements from Lake Tyler, but opted to include the thoroughfare as it would be more expensive at a later date.

Danny Hogden also expressed concern that partially completing the road and then finishing it later would appear to be an effort to deceive the public.

Council also voted to pay an additional $5,000 fee to the property owners of the proposed park site, securing their purchase option until July 1.

Criticism about elements of the park's conceptual plan led to a petition to halt the city from earlier issuing certificates of obligation.