Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prattville planning commission rejects rezoning request for Candlestick mobile-home park
Summary
The Prattville Planning Commission voted down a petition to rezone land associated with Candlestick Mobile Home Park from B2 to T3, after residents raised concerns about public notice and site conditions and after applicant testimony about repairs and affordable-housing benefits.
The Prattville Planning Commission on Nov. 20 rejected a request to rezone land associated with Candlestick Mobile Home Park from B2 (general business) to T3 (manufactured/mobile-home park district).
Allen Ibbotson, who identified himself as representing Candlestick MHP LLC, told the commission the rezoning would ‘‘align with the zoning map on how our properties are currently operating’’ and allow replacement of aging homes and continued investments. ‘‘Candlestick is one of Prattville’s few truly affordable housing options,’’ he said, adding that the owner has repaired roads, cleared storm drains and invested in erosion control.
Resident John Lee Finnegan urged the commission to delay action, saying the meeting packet had not been posted online and that the public had insufficient time to review materials. ‘‘The public did not have the information that was supposed to be provided to them, so you need to hold this at least until December,’’ Finnegan said.
Planning staff presented aerial maps and said portions of the park are nonconforming under current ordinance and that rezoning to T3 would require conformance with current setback, landscaping and storm-shelter standards. During discussion the applicant confirmed the broader property is about 56 acres and said 41 homes are currently occupied; staff earlier referenced an approximate acreage and showed slides saying roughly 18 acres were proposed for rezoning in the presentation materials.
After commissioner questions and public comment, the commission called the question and the motion to recommend rezoning failed. The commission recorded the outcome by voice; no roll-call tally was provided in the transcript.
Because the commission did not recommend the rezoning, the applicant may return with additional information, revised boundaries or a new application if they choose. The record shows competing points in the hearing: the applicant argued rezoning would correct a technical mismatch and enable investment, while at least one resident said notice and review time were inadequate and criticized existing site conditions.
