Vandalia council rejects Mulberry Road rezoning for 87 townhomes after resident safety, parking concerns

City of Vandalia — The City Council voted 4-2 on Oct. 6 against approving Ordinance 25-22, a rezoning and planned unit development (PUD) request that would have allowed DDC Management to build 87 townhomes on an 11.36-acre parcel at 3330 Mulberry Road. The planning commission had recommended approval 3-0. Residents and several council members raised concerns about traffic, parking, safety and impacts on neighboring properties.

The council vote followed a lengthy public hearing in which adjacent homeowners and other residents described narrow, winding sections of Mulberry Road, limited sight lines and neighborhood cut-through traffic. “There is not the infrastructure there to support this development,” resident Mark Cornelius said during public comment, urging council to reject the ordinance.

Why it matters: The site lies adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods including Copperfield and Greystone Circle. Residents told council they fear increased traffic volumes and speeds, limited off-street parking for units with one-car garages, and a single entrance/exit for the development that could impede emergency access.

Supporters, including the applicant’s attorney, said the proposal fits the city’s 2020 comprehensive plan designation for medium-density residential and that a traffic-engineer report indicated the project would not create unacceptable congestion. “The medium density residential designation specifically lists townhomes as an intended use,” attorney Robert Ballinger said, and he told council the developer would design to meet municipal parking requirements.

Opponents disputed those assurances. Councilwoman Dugan, citing planning commission testimony, said she did not believe Mulberry Road could “be adequate to handle the increased traffic load” and objected to a single entrance. She warned that queued vehicles leaving the development could interfere with emergency vehicles. Dugan also referenced development standards that require adequate parking, loading and stacking and said she worried about on-street parking inhibiting traffic flow and emergency response.

Residents described prior attempts to build on the parcel. James Test said a similar plan was defeated about three years ago and urged council to vote against the current proposal. Scott Whitenack, an adjacent property owner, said the driveway access near his home can already be “very troublesome” during morning and evening traffic.

Council debate focused on statutory procedure and the 13 PUD review criteria in Vandalia’s code. Vice Mayor Blakesley and other council members emphasized that the planning commission and staff compile technical findings, but several council members said the design would not mitigate negative impacts on surrounding properties.

Council action and next steps: Councilwoman Dugan first moved to deny Ordinance 25-22; that motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Blakesley. After procedural discussion, Dugan later moved to accept the ordinance so the council could resolve the matter in a single vote; that motion failed, 4-2 (Yes: Councilman Lewis, Mayor Herbst; No: Council member First, Council member Avalotus Weaver, Councilwoman Dugan, Vice Mayor Blakesley). The failure of the approval motion means the ordinance was not adopted.

What stayed in the record: The planning commission’s 3-0 recommendation in August; the developer’s engineering and traffic materials submitted to staff; resident statements about parking, safety and neighborhood character; and repeated requests from council and residents for clarity on circulation, parking counts and sight-line mitigation. The developer stated it would meet municipal parking-code requirements during final design, but opponents said that did not address likely street parking and circulation through adjoining neighborhoods.

Background: The applicant requested rezoning of the 11.36-acre parcel from agricultural to PUD with a preliminary development plan for 87 townhomes. Planning staff presented the application and noted the applicant’s assertion that single-family construction was not economically feasible on the parcel. The planning commission recommended approval on Aug. 26, 2025 by a 3-0 vote.

Council members and residents said the Mulberry corridor will continue to develop and that long-term roadway improvements are being studied; staff confirmed the city has purchased some adjacent property for potential future improvements but gave no timeline.

The city provided no immediate directive to staff for further study beyond what is already in the record; any future application or a substantially revised plan would return to planning commission and council for review.