Everman council rejects rezoning request for 200 West Enon Avenue

The Everman City Council on Tuesday rejected a rezoning request for a property at 200 West Enon Avenue, voting down an ordinance that would have changed the lot from A2 single‑family residential to M1 two‑family residential (duplex).

Planning staff opened the public hearing on case number 4360 and explained that the city’s future land‑use plan identifies the parcel as single‑family residential and that staff recommended denial “solely because of the concern of the precedent it would set,” specifically the risk that allowing a duplex there would create a transitional corridor encouraging additional conversions nearby, staff said.

The applicant, George Sandoval, who told the council he has owned the property about a year, said he had cleaned and improved the building and described the layout as two separate living units. “It’s a 2 bedroom apartment in the back,” Sandoval said, adding he intended to manage the property and not allow it to fall into disrepair. He told the council the site had two electric meters at one time and that a long‑term tenant had occupied part of the property for about 25 years.

Planning staff told the council that city and county records show the parcel has been recorded and treated as single‑family in the official zoning records; there is no ordinance on record formally zoning the site for multifamily, staff said. Staff also said the property historically had separate postal addresses and that utilities reporting in prior decades could have been inconsistent, but that the city has found no legal evidence the duplex use was ever approved and therefore it would not qualify as a lawful, grandfathered multifamily use.

Council members raised two main concerns: the precedent that approving a duplex could establish a transition zone prompting further rezoning requests on adjacent A2 parcels, and traffic and parking impacts along Enon Avenue. One council member referenced prior efforts to clean up inconsistent zoning and said the council had worked to remove “spot zoning” in the past; another noted Enon is “heavily trafficked” and expressed worry about on‑street parking given what appears to be a single driveway on the property.

The Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended denial at its hearing. After deliberation the council took a vote on the ordinance to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance and map.

Vote on ordinance (rezoning case 4360): Place 1 — No; Place 2 — No; Place 3 — Yes; Place 4 — No; Place 5 — No; Place 6 — Abstain; Mayor — No. The motion to approve the rezoning failed.

Council members told the applicant staff would work with him on alternative options, and staff invited him to search historical records and return with documentary evidence if he could find legal documentation showing an earlier approved duplex use.

The council closed the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and proceeded to other business.