Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery City councilors hear multiple rezoning requests and a zoning-code text amendment; some members signal opposition
Summary
Montgomery City council reviewed two rezoning proposals — 3221 Duffy Street and 3521 Hainville Road — and a proposed text amendment to the zoning code. Several council members said they have met with residents and indicated plans to oppose the rezoning requests; no formal votes were recorded at the time of the meeting.
Montgomery City councilors heard public-notice items on proposed rezoning for 3221 Duffy Street and 3521 Hainville Road and a separate text amendment to the city zoning ordinance during the agenda-setting portion of the meeting.
A council member who said she had met with residents urged denial of the Duffy Street rezoning, saying developers were proposing “a trailer subdivision, not just 1 area for a trailer,” and added, “they're trying to do a trailer subdivision, not just 1 area for a trailer. And those are homes down there, and they don't want it down there.” That speaker said she planned to “motion to deny this when we come up.”
On the Hainville Road proposal, another council member reported meeting with residents who asked why a residential area would be rezoned to commercial, saying: “They want they wanna rezone it to commercial. And it's just 1 little area. Nothing is down there but homes, and they don't want no commercial depending on what it is that's coming down there in their district.” The speaker also cited traffic concerns on a two-lane road.
Council staff gave brief notice that the item described as a text amendment would change numerous sections of the zoning code. Councilors asked procedural questions about hearings and scheduling; no formal votes or final actions on the two rezoning requests or the text amendment were recorded during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript.
Why it matters: Rezoning from residential to higher-density or commercial districts can change allowable uses, traffic patterns and neighborhood character. Several council members said they had spoken with area residents and intend to press for denial or closer review when the items return to a public hearing.
What happened next: Councilors placed the items on the calendar for public hearing in a regular meeting; one council member announced an intention to make a motion to deny the Duffy Street rezoning when that agenda item is taken up. The council did not record roll-call votes on the rezoning items in the transcript provided.
Details and context: The Duffy Street item was described as rezoning “3221 Duffy Street from an R 60 D District to an R 99 S District.” The Hainville Road item was described as rezoning “3521 Hainville Road from an R 60 D district to a V 2 district.” The text amendment was introduced as changes to “numerous sections” of the zoning ordinance; the ordinance text itself was not quoted in the transcript.
Next steps: The rezoning proposals and the zoning-code text amendment will return for public hearings at a regular meeting; councilors provisionally signaled opposition to the two rezoning requests and a motion to deny at the regular meeting was announced but not recorded as voted in the transcript.
