Martinsville BZA unanimously approves use variance for law office at 260 South Mulberry

The Martinsville Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved a use variance allowing a law office to operate at 260 South Mulberry.

The board approved document BZA25023, accepting the applicant's proposed findings of fact and the planning staff recommendation that the change would not be injurious to public health, safety or morals. Planning staff read the findings aloud before the vote and the motion passed with all members voting in favor.

The approved findings say the office has operated about 300 yards from the proposed site for 13 years without harming the community and that the proximity of the Morgan County judicial campus at 180 South Martin Street makes the property better suited for an attorney's office than a private residence. The findings also said the variance would not substantially alter normal development in the area and would not conflict with the comprehensive plan under the 500 series of the zoning ordinance.

Applicant Gabriel Britton, who identified himself as an attorney in Martinsville, told the board he bought the house at 260 South Mulberry and plans to work there as a sole practitioner with one assistant. "I purchased the house over at 260 South Mulberry Street, which is about 300 yards from my current location. I'd like to operate my practice out there. I'm a sole practitioner. It'd just be me and an assistant. I have adequate parking, behind the building, so I wouldn't have to utilize on street parking," Britton said. He said he does not plan major exterior renovations except to remove and repair a subsided front porch.

A nearby neighbor, Anna Elliott, spoke in support during public comment but said she wanted to avoid front-yard parking. "So as long as we don't have a parking lot in the front yard, I say absolutely," Elliott said, adding the location makes sense because it is close to the new Justice Center.

Board members and staff discussed parking during the hearing. Britton described a garage and room for about three parking spaces between the garage and the house, plus on-street parking. A board member asked whether a condition should be added to make the variance revert if the property is sold; staff replied that such a reversion need not be stated in the motion. The board nonetheless made the required findings on the record before voting.

No amendments to the findings were recorded. The board's action approved the use variance as written; staff did not list additional follow-up tasks during the hearing.