Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects rezoning for Barksdale Lane development after resident safety and short‑term rental concerns
Summary
The Shelbyville City Council voted down a first‑reading rezoning request that would have changed about 5.17 acres on Barksdale Lane from medium‑density (R‑3) to high‑density (R‑4). Neighbors told the council the narrow, S‑curve road lacks sidewalks and that reserving units for short‑term rentals would hurt long‑term housing stock.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Shelbyville City Council on Sept. 12 voted against a first‑reading ordinance to rezone roughly 5.17 acres on Barksdale Lane from R‑3 (medium density) to R‑4 (high density), after residents and several council members raised traffic, safety and housing‑type concerns.
Residents Joanna Bassil and Patrick Schmidt told the council the roadway is narrow, lacks sidewalks and already carries pedestrian traffic from neighbors without cars. "The road itself is not equipped to handle the traffic that it currently has," Bassil said, adding that she was concerned about "adding 52 additional units" onto the roadway. Schmidt said changing plans repeatedly during the development process left property owners feeling misled and warned that short‑term rentals near homes would feel "like a hotel right behind my house."
During council discussion several members noted that a different zoning classification (R‑3A) could reduce allowable units — a council member estimated that R‑3A might drop an anticipated 52 units to about 40 — but staff and council said the developer had not requested that change. The council took a roll‑call first reading vote and the motion to rezone as written failed.
Council members who recorded 'no' votes cited density and traffic safety as primary concerns. Staff told the council the developer could reapply with a revised plan if it wished to pursue a lower density classification and that the permitting process would require returning to the planning commission and council.
The council did not adopt any alternate zoning at the meeting; the matter may return if the applicant submits a revised application.
Actions at the meeting included a first‑reading motion to rezone the parcel from R‑3 to R‑4; the motion failed on roll call. No ordinance was adopted.

