Council rejects rezoning second reading after residents raise parking, drainage and character concerns

The Beresford City Council declined to adopt a zoning change known as Ordinance 2025‑O‑4 in a second‑reading vote after a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors, nearby residents and the developer discussed drainage, parking and traffic impacts.

The ordinance would have rezoned a block near the elementary school to allow multifamily units proposed by a developer. Mayor Sealy opened the floor for public comment before the council took a formal vote. The meeting record shows repeated concerns from residents about stormwater, fill needed to raise the site above a low spot, parking on the alley, and the effect of multifamily units among long‑established single‑family homes.

Why it matters: The council’s decision keeps the property in its current zoning and leaves the developer’s proposal in limbo. Speakers framed the dispute around where multifamily housing belongs in town, whether the project would be financially viable at smaller unit counts, and how to reduce impacts for adjacent homeowners.

Residents and neighbors pressed the council on several technical points. Multiple speakers asked whether the project’s grading plan would drain to a storm sewer rather than the street, how much fill would be brought in, and whether rear‑alley parking would worsen access for existing homes. A resident who said 18 neighbors had signed a petition against the rezoning asked why that opposition had not stopped the process earlier. The developer, identified in the meeting as Skyler, described unit sizes (about 719 sq ft for many units), said bank financing is in place and said subcontractors would be used for most trades.

Two council members recused themselves from voting because of associations the record describes as linked to management or sale of the property; the minutes name those councilors as Mike Tiedemann and Sarah Antonson. The roll call for the motion to approve the second reading recorded three yes votes and one no vote; the motion failed.

Councilors asked the developer to return with more detail on stormwater mitigation, parking layout and any lease or property management rules the developer would use to control occupancy and parking. Several councilors suggested voluntary measures — fencing, additional buffering, or a signed covenant from the developer to adopt neighborhood mitigation measures — might make the project more acceptable if the developer wished to bring a new plan forward.

The record shows the council discussed procedural options if it rejected the rezoning: a public referendum can be initiated by petition under state law (5% of registered voters within a 20‑day window after publication was cited), or the developer can revise and refile. The council also discussed tabling the item to gather more information and to allow direct outreach to neighbors.

The council chair closed the public hearing by saying staff would work with the parties on next steps. No change to the zoning map was adopted at the meeting.

Ending: The rezoning matter remains open; the ordinance did not pass and the council asked staff to gather additional technical and outreach information if the developer wishes to return with changes.