Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning for 6005 New Watermelon Road over neighborhood objection
Summary
The Tuscaloosa City Council voted 4-3 to rezone about 4.99 acres at 6005 New Watermelon Road from single-family to general commercial after a contested public hearing and planning commission split; neighbors raised concerns about future boat storage and conformity with the city's land-use framework.
The Tuscaloosa City Council voted 4-3 to approve a rezoning request from North River Crossing LLC that changes roughly 4.99 acres at 6005 New Watermelon Road from SFR-1 (single-family residential) to GC (general commercial).
Planning staff introduced the request as a pre-zoning so the property will enter the city under a commercial zoning if it is later annexed. Planner Zach Ponds said the developer proposed a gas station and several retail and office tenants in conceptual renderings; he also noted the proposal does not match the city's Framework future land-use designation for the site, which identifies the area as "traditional neighborhood edge." Ponds said the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5-1 vote; Commissioner Prince cast the lone opposing vote because she believed the location should remain residential.
Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing urged the council to maintain residential uses. Resident Alan Wheldon, who lives at 4205 Midway Lane, said he has opposed gas stations at the subdivision entrance for months and warned that the property could be used for boat storage or similar uses that would "have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood." He told the council that the future land-use map identifies the site as traditional neighborhood edge and said residents preferred residential development.
Mark Herring, representing the petitioner, said his team planned an "upscale" development for the front portion of the property and offered that the developers would annex and bring city approvals for additional parcels when they are ready. Herring said, "We don't have a problem' ... annexing it in the city when we develop it." He also said the developers intend the finished project to be attractive and consistent with the surrounding area.
Council discussion focused on the role of the Framework plan as guidance rather than a binding mandate and on the risk of leaving the property outside the city's standards if not annexed. During the vote, Councilor Edmond said he would "side with Miss Prince on this one," reflecting the planning commission dissent. The measure passed 4-3.
Because this action was a rezoning only, annexation of the property and any specific site design, development plan, building permits and other regulatory approvals would be separate processes and were not decided at the June council meeting.
Votes at the hearing were 4 in favor and 3 opposed; the council did not adopt any binding restrictions on future uses of the undeveloped rear parcels as part of the rezoning vote.
