Neighbors and members spar over rezoning request for Maybelle House; commission conditions parking agreements

The Bryan Zoning Commission heard more than two hours of public testimony Feb. 5 on a rezoning request (RZ25‑126) that would reclassify two properties at 600 and 604 East 27th Street into a planned development (PD) to formalize operations of Maybelle House, a member‑run nonprofit offering fitness, counseling and short‑term care.

The staff presentation said the PD would allow specific uses — fitness center, counseling and short‑term care — while keeping the 604 property subject to historic‑district review. Project planner Thomas Benjamin Johnson told the commission the PD includes special regulations: limits on exterior lighting and signage, a prohibition on activities outside 8 a.m.–8 p.m. unless fully on site, and a requirement that noise not be “discernible beyond the district.” He said staff recommends approval with amendments including an off‑street parking agreement with First Methodist Church and St. Joseph Catholic Church to meet parking needs.

Supporters, including long‑time users and staff, framed Maybelle House as a community resource. “It’s the kind of place where you’re not just another number,” Rachel Gallagher said during the citizens’ comment period, describing the site’s counseling and family services. Applicant Casey Van Buren, who identified herself as a founder and director, said the nonprofit has served “over 5,000 BCS patrons,” acknowledged mistakes in permitting, and said the organization has been working with city staff since 2022 to reach compliance.

Opponents focused on impacts to the residential historic district. Nearby resident Bob Akhil said traffic increased markedly: “I started at 15 cars, and now it’s up to 45 cars twice a day,” he said, and raised questions about whether a traffic study had been done. Other neighbors described loud music from an open garage and warned that rezoning could set a precedent that erodes protections for adjacent homes.

Commissioners focused their questions on two related topics: enforceability and permanence. Several asked how the city would respond if off‑site parking agreements with churches were terminated later; staff and counsel pointed to code‑enforcement tools, municipal citations and the possibility of injunctive action, and said the PD could require updated parking agreements before final approval. Commissioners also flagged that the PD’s noise standard (“not discernible beyond the district”) is vague and could prompt repeated enforcement calls unless clarified.

Council deliberations produced competing motions. One commissioner moved to recommend denial, citing potential detriment to the historic neighborhood. Another moved to recommend approval with conditions; the approval motion as discussed would add requirements that off‑site parking agreements be secured for the term of the use, that the PD site plan and elevations be binding, and that staff ensure coordination with Historic Landmark Commission requirements. The record shows the commission resolved to forward a recommendation with conditions to the city council for final action.

What’s next: The commission forwarded its recommendation and any required amendments to the PD language to the city council. Council will hold the final public hearing and take the ultimate vote on the rezoning. The commission reiterated that enforcement of PD standards would rely on the site plan, parking agreements and standard code‑enforcement processes.