Planning commission approves rezoning to allow Midlow Scoops expansion despite neighbor opposition

The Midlothian Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-2 vote approved an amendment and rezoning that will change the southern 63 feet of Lot 2, Block 52, Original Town of Midlothian, from Residential 3 to Urban Village Plan Development District No. 114 to allow Midlow Scoops to expand into the adjacent property at 105 South Third Street.

City planning staff introduced the plan development amendment, saying the two properties total 0.396 acres and the proposal would allow professional office and a limited restaurant/walk-up beverage and prepackaged food use while prohibiting on-site baking, cooking of hot food and heavy food-preparation equipment. Staff said the change is consistent with the city’s 2045 comprehensive plan and the surrounding “original town” land-use module.

Neighbors strongly opposed the rezoning during the public hearing. Josh Messenger, a resident at 717 West Avenue H, told commissioners the neighborhood already suffers from parking congestion and said, “I think that this is going to increase our parking problems in the area.” Ted Howard, a longtime Old Town resident, argued a restaurant in a historic, residential block would threaten property values and described potential nuisance impacts. Brenda Hayes, a resident directly adjacent to the site, said the area has become “commercial level noise, lighting, and traffic” and asked, “Who are we building Midlothian for?” Pam Long said activity and lighting from the existing business already intrude into neighbors’ backyards and called the change a “danger, not a development.”

Applicant Jonathan Douglas, the project manager for the owners, told the commission the proposal aims to be “as low impact as possible.” He said the plan will retain the residential exterior appearance of 105 South Third Street, remove the fence between the two properties to improve connectivity, provide decorative shielded pedestrian lighting not to exceed 10 feet, use commercial trash pickup (no dumpster), and provide a fenced outdoor seating area behind 105. Douglas said the expanded space will provide indoor seating and restrooms but that food service will be limited: the menu will be cold/frozen items, hot and cold beverages, and food prepared only with countertop appliances. He said the ice cream operation’s hours would remain the same as now — 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday — although the ordinance language for business operations reads no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 10 p.m.

Staff reported 16 mailed notices to property owners within 200 feet (representing three properties) and initially cited 31 letters of support and four letters of opposition from citizens outside the 200-foot radius; during the meeting staff clarified total correspondence included 35 letters of support and seven letters of opposition when citywide submissions were counted. The staff recommendation was for approval based on surrounding land-use compatibility and comprehensive-plan consistency.

After closing the public hearing with a unanimous vote to end testimony, the commission discussed the neighbors’ concerns. Commissioners asked whether the exterior of 105 would be preserved and whether parking and lighting impacts could be mitigated; Douglas replied the exterior would remain largely unchanged except for shortening some windows for an internal restroom and that the applicant had tried to coordinate with the nearby gym and school about lighting and parking use. No formal conditions beyond the submitted PD amendment language were recorded in the motion.

A motion to approve as presented passed 5-2. The record does not attribute individual yea or nay votes to named commissioners in the transcript; staff recorded the final tally as five in favor, two opposed.

The ordinance amendment updates the UVPD 114 development and use regulations for the southern portion of the lot to permit the described uses subject to the restrictions stated in the submitted plan and the city’s zoning ordinance.

The commission did not direct additional studies or conditions beyond the PD amendment as presented; commissioners who voiced opposition said they would have preferred further neighborhood outreach or additional restrictions addressing parking and late-night activity.

The applicant and staff said they will follow up on permitting steps and any required building modifications. No dates for council consideration or permit issuance were stated on the record.