Neighbors urge council to reject rezoning of 14.77-acre tract at 231 North; planning staff recommends approval
Loading...
Summary
Homeowners living behind a 14.77-acre vacant parcel on 231 North asked the Shelbyville City Council April 29 to oppose a rezoning request from low-density residential (R-1) to general business (C-2), citing loss of tree buffer, traffic and noise concerns.
Several residents who live behind a vacant 14.77-acre parcel on 231 North urged the Shelbyville City Council April 29 to oppose a developer’s request to rezone the tract from R-1 (low-density residential) to C-2 (general business).
Deanna Sacko, a homeowner directly behind the site, told the council the parcel was previously proposed for higher-density residential in 2021 but received an unfavorable recommendation from the planning commission. Sacko said the reasons given then — incompatibility with the future land-use map and surrounding single-family homes — also apply to a commercial rezoning request.
Sacko and her sister, Dayha Bobo, described a loss of tree buffering on the site and expressed concern about noise, safety and truck activity if commercial development or strip centers are built adjacent to their properties. Bobo said neighbors had already noticed a nearby household listing for sale and that the rezoning prospect had influenced that decision.
Planning Director Thomas Bachelor told the council the parcel lies within the city’s gateway corridor on the future land-use map and that commercial zoning is an appropriate future use under that plan. Bachelor acknowledged the parcel backs to county property and single-family homes and said city zoning and development rules require buffering, screening and site-development mitigation when commercial uses abut residential properties. He said staff recommended approval and that the planning commission supported the recommendation.
Consulting engineer Scott St. John, representing the property owner, said the owners had been approached by commercial retailers and preferred commercial development because traffic counts and demand have changed since the owners acquired the land. He and staff said any new development would be subject to site-plan review and to buffering/screening requirements to reduce impacts on adjacent residences.
Ending: Council members did not vote that evening; the matter remained under study and will return to the council as a formal rezoning ordinance. Residents and staff will have an opportunity to provide additional materials during the formal public-hearing process.
