Editor’s note: This report was assembled from a recording of the meeting.
The Land Planning and Development Committee, chaired by Henderson City Council member Bobby Gupton, met on October 17. In addition to Gupton, members Lonnie Davis and Garry Daeke were present and the meeting, as well as City Manager Jerry Moss and Code Compliance Officer Corey Williams.
The first item discussed was a potential development at Rowland Pond. At the Henderson City Council meeting on October 9, Donald Matthews, a real estate broker, addressed the Council regarding property adjoining the city-owned pond. At that time, he asked the Council if it would consider selling the pond, or working with him in “beautifying” the property.
Gupton suggested to his committee that they wait until the developer bring something for them to look at.
Davis indicated that the liked the idea as it has been presented at the meeting.
Gupton asked if the city wanted to let the land be developed. He asked Moss if the city wanted to sell the pond to them.
During the discussion, there was an indication that a local conservancy group should be contacted. At first, it was believed that Daeke had the contact information for the group. Daeke, arriving late, informed the committee that it was Henderson Mayor Clem Seifert who had suggested that the group be contacted during the Council meeting on October 9.
After Gupton indicated that apartments would fall in the $250,000 price range, it was agreed that the matter would be tabled until plans were presented to the committee.
Code Compliance Officer Corey Williams told the committee that two houses were ready for demolition, pending council approval. The houses, 623 and 629 Powell Street, are side-by-side on the same lot. According to Williams, the owner has failed to appear at any of the requisite hearings. The houses themseves have been the sources of several complaints.
The cost of demolition will be $1,800 and $1,000 in disposal.
Regarding the Armory, Daeke indicated he had recently spoken to Mitch Wiles of State Historic Preservation regarding state and federal tax credits.
Wiles had related a plan for redevelopment of the property which involved a private developer willing to develop according to the considerations of the city.
Daeke worried, however, that the county’s stipulation that proceeds be split might “fly in the face” of any such arrangement. The committee agreed that the profit motive had to be present for the developer for such a scheme to work.
Gupton reiterated the county’s repeated statement at the last Intergovernmental Committee meeting that they have no interest in the Armory.
Daeke stated that they [the county] are not going to put any money into it. He said he would like one last look with the [State Historic Preservation] people before giving an answer to the county.
Moss indicated that no one would want to put a lot of tax money into the Armory.