Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham Springs approves rezoning of three lots on Myrtle and Cornett to allow two-family duplexes
Summary
The council adopted an ordinance amending the city zoning ordinance (City Ordinance 1001, RZ-456) to rezone three lots from R-1 to R-2 at Myrtle and Cornett streets to permit two-family duplex residences; Fairbank Associates’ Sean Hylton spoke for the property owner and Planning & Zoning recommended approval 6–0.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham Springs — The Durham Springs City Council on Aug. 25 approved an ordinance amending the city zoning code to rezone three lots at Myrtle and Cornett streets from R-1 (single-family residential) to R-2 (two-family residential) to permit duplex residences. The ordinance was identified in the record as an amendment to Section 1.02 of Article 1 of the city’s zoning ordinance (City Ordinance 1001), referenced as RZ-456 and requested by Bridal Brooks.
Sean Hylton of Fairbank Associates spoke for the property owner and described the parcel configuration: three lots (two fronting Myrtle and one on the corner facing Cornett). Hylton said the two Myrtle lots are a little over 100 feet of frontage each and the corner lot is about 74 feet. He said adjacent zoning includes R-1 nearby and commercial zoning (C-2 and C-3) across Myrtle; Planning & Zoning considered the request and recommended approval by a unanimous vote recorded as 6–0. The council opened and closed the public hearing; no members of the public registered opposition during the meeting.
Councilmember Lamb/Liam Williams moved to close the public hearing; Councilman Poole seconded. The council later moved to adopt the ordinance as published; the clerk recorded affirmative votes from Gilbert, Liam Williams and Poole and the motion carried. The ordinance changes the zoning classification to permit construction of two-family duplex residences on the reconfigured lots; the meeting record does not include building plans, infrastructure commitments or a development timetable. The council did not attach supplemental conditions or require additional public hearings in the meeting’s record.
