Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning at 1009 Mooney Avenue over planning commission recommendation
Summary
The Hammond City Council voted to rezone 1009 Mooney Avenue from RS-3 to RM-3 despite a 2–1 planning and zoning commission recommendation to deny, with the council recording three ayes, one no and one abstention.
The Hammond City Council voted Tuesday to rezone 1009 Mooney Avenue from RS-3 (single-family residential) to RM-3 (multi-family residential), moving forward with the applicant’s request despite a split recommendation against the change from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The planning staff told the council the commission recommended denial by a 2–1 vote, citing that the change would amount to spot zoning because the parcel is surrounded largely by RS-3 zoning. Council members and members of the public discussed neighboring zoning before the vote.
Tracy Wells, a resident who addressed the council during the public hearing, said there is MXC zoning immediately north of the property near the intersection of Mooney and Phoenix Square and urged the council to consider the map orientation and surrounding land uses when weighing whether the rezoning would be an isolated change.
Council discussion centered on whether the request was standard housekeeping or a substantive change that would create a pocket of different zoning. Staff repeated the commission’s concern that adjacent parcels are RS-3 and that the commission believed approving the rezoning would constitute spot zoning.
On final adoption of Ordinance No. 1 to rezone the property, the council recorded these votes: Councilman Leon — Aye; Councilman Andrews — Aye; Councilman De Vateria (Divitario) — Abstain; Councilwoman Gonzales — No; Councilman Wells — Aye. The motion to approve therefore carried.
The ordinance as adopted changes the zoning designation for 1009 Mooney Avenue from RS-3 to RM-3. Council staff and the applicant did not provide a detailed development plan at the hearing; the applicant’s stated intent was to obtain RM-3 zoning but no subsequent use was specified in the record.
Planning staff noted that the official staff packet initially included incorrect attachments (maps omitted in the updated staff report) and that the commission’s vote was 2–1, not 3–0 as first reported on an earlier staff page. That correction was read into the record by staff during the public hearing.
The council did not attach conditions to the rezoning at the time of final adoption. Any future development or building permit applications for this parcel will be subject to the city’s permitting and review processes.
Votes and formal actions related to this ordinance are in the public minutes; council members who spoke or voted on the item are listed below.
