Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and neighbors clash over rezoning for Norwood senior housing project
Summary
Developer Clarence Ball presented plans for a senior-focused mixed-income development at Norwood Drive and sought rezoning from R-1 to R-3; neighbors and several council members urged more outreach. The planning commission previously recommended approval 8–1; the council did not take a final vote and requested further meetings.
Clarence Ball, president of Ball Healthcare Services, asked the Mobile City Council on April 22 to approve rezoning of a parcel in the Norwood area to allow a mixed-income, senior-focused development that would include independent- and assisted-living units built under the federal low-income housing tax credit program.
Ball said the project is aimed at “active adult residential” tenants aged 55 and older and described income bands he said would target people making roughly $28,500 to $52,600 — “50 to 80% of Mobile’s median income,” he said — and that the project design reduces density to about 60 units on the rezoned parcel compared with what he said could be “a hundred houses” under existing R-1 development patterns.
The proposal prompted several council members and neighbors to press the developer for more meetings and design changes. “I’d ask you to withdraw your application so that we can actually fund something that works like similar developments in the area,” Councilman Reynolds said, urging Ball to meet with neighbors and reconsider the plan’s layout. Councilman Woods and Vice President Gregory likewise encouraged additional community engagement before a final council decision.
Teresa Bettis, executive director of the Center for Fair Housing, told the council that the city has a long-term shortage of affordable units and urged officials to consider housing access in zoning decisions. “We are short over 900 units of affordable housing,” Bettis said, adding that denying the rezoning could expose the city to federal compliance concerns tied to funds the city receives.
Ball said the project would use 4% federal tax credits (a noncompetitive allocation he said should be filed in the current application cycle) and that some units would be market-rate while others would be more affordable within the same campus. He told council members the rezoning request is intended to reduce overall density on that parcel and offered to make the rezoning contingent on construction if that would allay neighbors’ concerns.
Council members noted that the Planning Commission recommended rezoning 8–1 and that the City’s plan identifies the site as a suitable location for higher residential density, but several council members said neighbors’ concerns about preserving single-family character remained unresolved. Multiple members urged Ball to meet directly with nearby residents and to bring revised plans back to the council; Ball agreed to meet with councilmembers and residents. No formal rezoning vote was recorded in the April 22 proceeding.
The council also discussed process and timetable: Ball said the tax-credit application should be submitted in the current cycle (he estimated the cycle boundaries as around June–July), but several council members warned that statutory notice requirements for rezoning and community outreach mean the city cannot shortcut public-notice timelines.
Next steps: the developer and councilmembers agreed to schedule additional meetings with neighbors; the rezoning application remained pending before the council after April 22.
