Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of four South Elm parcels to allow single-family homes
Summary
Mulberry’s board voted 4-0 to rezone four parcels on South Elm (lots 35, 36, 41 and 42 in the Susan B. Anthony addition) from I-1 (light industrial) to R-3, allowing single-family dwellings; objectors cited concerns about rentals and alley access.
The Mulberry board voted 4-0 to rezone four parcels on South Elm Street and Mulberry from I-1 (light industrial) to R-3 (single-family residential), approving the staff-backed recommendation forwarded from the Historic Preservation Commission.
The parcels—identified in the record as lots 35, 36, 41 and 42 in the Susan B. Anthony addition—were the subject of several written objections and public remarks at the meeting from neighbors concerned the change might lead to duplexes, apartment conversions or storage units. A local resident said the neighborhood has struggled historically with poorly maintained rental properties and urged that new housing be owner-occupied.
Staff and other speakers clarified that R-3 zoning permits single-family dwellings as a straight permitted use; duplexes would require a special exception and apartments are not allowed. The board also noted the owner obtained a lot-size variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals so the four lots could become individually buildable; that variance is contingent on the rezoning being approved.
Proponents described plans for single-family homes—estimated 1,500–1,700 square feet and two stories—priced in the mid-$200,000s to low-$300,000s, and said initial building would likely occur in pairs rather than all four at once. The applicant estimated permitting and plan work could allow ground to break as early as June–July, assuming approvals proceed.
After discussion, a council member made the motion to approve the rezoning and variance; it was seconded and carried 4-0. Council members asked staff to circulate the signed documents and to notify abutting property owners if any alley-vacation petitions are later submitted; board members repeatedly stated they would not approve an alley closing without separate public notice and formal action.
The board’s action changes the official zoning for the parcels but does not itself approve any specific building permits or redevelopment plans; any future duplex or multiunit proposals would require additional approvals.
