Council approves multiple 5-in-5 infill agreements; members ask staff to track housing‑type inventory
Loading...
Summary
By unanimous vote the Paris City Council approved four 5-in-5 infill housing agreements on June 9, authorizing tax‑abatements and transfers of city or county trustee lots for small single‑family homes and duplexes.
The Paris City Council on June 9 approved four economic-development agreements and residential tax‑abatements under the city’s 5-in-5 housing infill program for separate developers seeking to construct small infill homes and duplexes on city and county trustee lots.
Staff said applicants met program-location and improvement criteria and that notice of council consideration had been posted at least 30 days as required by law. The council adopted resolutions approving agreements for:
- EXL Capital Group LLC (Jakir Malik) — proposed to build four single‑family homes on a mix of city and Lamar County trustee lots; estimated improvement cost $130,000–$150,000 per unit; council approved 7–0.
- Invest Lamar LLC — proposed 10 single‑family homes on multiple trustee lots; council approved 7–0.
- R4U Ventures LLC (Michael White) — proposed 10 single‑family homes on trustee parcels (one lot to be subdivided into two); estimated total improvement cost cited by staff was roughly $2.212 million; council approved 7–0.
- Magnolia Paris LLC (Josh Bray) — proposed three duplexes (six dwelling units) on lots the developer already owns; estimated cost $4,450,000; council approved 7–0.
Council members expressed concern about the small square footage of some proposed homes, asking whether the program was generating an over‑supply of minimal‑footprint housing. One council member asked whether staff could track the program inventory and return with a recommendation if the city’s housing mix skewed toward sub‑1,000‑square‑foot units.
Staff and council agreed that changing program rules retroactively would be difficult and recommended that staff monitor inventory and bring future policy or ordinance amendments back to council if a pattern emerged. Council also discussed statutory language included in agreements, including federally‑required or state‑mandated clauses noted by staff.
All four resolutions passed by voice vote; the meeting record shows each motion carried 7–0. Staff recommended and council approved the agreements; transfers of trustee properties were part of the program mechanics in several cases.
