Ozark aldermen reject rezoning for South Third Street building after contested enforcement dispute

The Board of Aldermen of the City of Ozark voted 3-2 against adopting an ordinance that would have rezoned property at 1014–1018 South Third Street from C‑4 (historic downtown overlay) to C‑2, a move staff recommended after enforcement actions over an altered roof and signage. The motion to adopt bill 3666 as ordinance 25‑047 failed with Aldermen Metcalfe, Aiken and Snyder voting yes and Aldermen Galloway and Hutchinson voting no; Alderman Campbell was absent.

Staff said the rezoning request was prompted by construction that did not comply with the C‑4 design standards and that a stop‑work order and enforcement citations were issued after the work continued. Community Development Director Bridal Whitman said the applicant initially inquired whether a permit was required to replace shingles; the work performed, she said, included a new roof profile and metal roof material that the C‑4 district does not allow. Whitman said the developer secured a structural engineer’s report stating the modifications did not compromise the building’s structural integrity.

The issue attracted extended discussion because the Onward Ozark comprehensive plan recommends a downtown aesthetic along the Third Street corridor. Several aldermen and staff framed the choice as weighing the plan’s design goals against the practical effect of forcing a property owner to remove an already‑constructed roof. Alderman Galloway and Alderman Hutchinson opposed rezoning, saying failing to enforce the current standards would encourage further noncompliance and undercut the city’s long‑term downtown design objectives. Alderman Metcalfe and others said rezoning would avoid a costly requirement to undo work and allow the building to remain economically productive while addressing signage and other concerns.

City staff and the city attorney described enforcement steps taken. Amanda (City Attorney) said at least two citations had been issued; she explained the penalty framework: the city’s general penalty section allows fines up to $500 (or other penalties within the code) and zoning violations may carry fines per day. Staff said the owner had lost insurance coverage while the roof work was incomplete and that some neighbors reported new drainage impacts. Community director Whitman said the owner was cooperative in applying for rezoning and combining parcels as requested; the owner was not present for the second reading when the Board voted.

Board members asked whether the altered roof would be considered a permissible wall sign or a prohibited roof sign under the overlay rules; staff said the white vertical surface was intended as a wall sign and the historic overlay’s restrictions target the roof material and visible design features. Several aldermen asked that, if the rezoning were rejected, the city pursue penalties for the code violations; City Attorney Amanda and the city prosecutor would present the city’s position to the judge should the citations proceed to court.

The ordinance failed on the roll call: Metcalfe, Aiken and Snyder voted aye; Galloway and Hutchinson voted no; Campbell absent. No amendment or compromise was adopted at the meeting.

The discussion highlighted tension between enforcing downtown design standards and accommodating an existing, occupied commercial building; the Board did not direct staff to pursue immediate demolition or forced removal, but members asked that legal staff pursue appropriate penalties in court and that planning staff continue evaluating the downtown design guidance.

The matter may return to a future agenda if the owner reapplies or the city pursues enforcement remedies in court.