Court holds first reading, public hearing on rezoning at 1651 Parrish Plaza Drive for 44-unit multifamily project

Daviess County Fiscal Court on Aug. 21 held the first reading and a public hearing on a proposed zoning change for a 6.103-acre tract at 1651 Parrish Plaza Drive, where the applicant seeks to reclassify the property from B-4 (general business) to R-3 MF (multifamily residential) to allow a 44-unit development.

Judge Castle read the ordinance language and confirmed the Metropolitan Planning and Zoning Commission had met July 10, 2025, and recommended approval of the zoning change. Cody Duvall, legal counsel for the applicant and Wabuk Development, said the proposal is for permanent multifamily housing and “that’s not the intention of this project at all” to be transitional group housing; he added the developer expects compliance with setback requirements and said the project would not include rental assistance such as Section 8.

Opponents at the hearing said they feared impacts on property values, neighborhood safety and nearby schools. Jamie Klomp, who owns adjacent rental properties, said he was “opposed” and raised concerns that the development would bring people walking through neighboring yards and urged the court to deny the rezoning. Roger Connor, who owns 110 nearby units, argued that a stated preference to rent to people in recovery could violate fair housing law and said the project would “definitely devalue our property.” Several tenants and property owners said they had circulated petitions and feared losing long-term residents.

Proponents and the applicant’s representatives disputed those claims. Dale Sites, who identified himself as a long-time recovery program operator, described 36 years in recovery work and told the court his projects in Henderson have produced stable housing and local employment; he said there have been “irrefutable” positive results and no major incidents in similar apartments he had developed. Applicant representatives said the project may pursue Low Income Housing Tax Credit scoring and other funding to make the development feasible and that any preference for people in recovery would not legally bar people from the general public if units were available.

On program details, applicants said residents would be screened for income and ability to pay rent; the developer’s representative described on‑site supports and said random drug testing would be carried out, “probably 3 times a year,” with the ability to increase testing frequency if problems occur. The court and staff repeatedly noted that zoning approval is separate from any future development plan: the current vote would determine whether the zone is appropriate at that location, not the final site layout or operational details.

The court did not vote on the zoning at the meeting. Judge Castle reminded attendees this was a first reading and that the court will take a vote at the next meeting; he stated there will be no public comment at that subsequent meeting. The first reading portion of the record runs from the initial ordinance reading through public testimony; the court’s next scheduled meeting will include the formal vote.

What’s next: The court will return to the item at its next meeting for a final vote on the rezoning ordinance; public comment will not be permitted on that date, per the chair’s statement.