Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of rezone request for 740 Copeland
Summary
The Rockdale Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a request to rezone 740 Copeland (Property ID 16438) from R-1 (single-family) to M-1 (manufactured home subdivision). The applicant, Sarah Hawley, said manufactured homes would lower construction costs and increase rental affordability; the recommendation now goes to City Council.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rockdale Planning & Zoning Commission on July 7 recommended that City Council deny a zoning change for 740 Copeland (Property ID 16438) that would reclassify the lot from R-1 (single-family residential) to M-1 (manufactured home subdivision).
The public hearing opened at about 1:35 p.m. Staff explained the lot is the northern of two owned parcels near the baseball fields and noted that, while some manufactured homes in the area are grandfathered, the city’s community survey ranks manufactured housing among the lowest priorities. Staff recommended denying the application to keep the zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The applicant, Sarah Hawley, identified herself at the podium as “a real estate investor” who owns land adjacent to a rehabilitated house. Hawley told the commission that the cost to build a site-built home would be prohibitive—she estimated roughly $250,000—and that a new manufactured home could be purchased for about $100,000–$120,000. “We would do it nice. We’d probably put a nice deck on the front and make sure it had good landscaping,” she said, adding the units would likely rent for similar or slightly more affordable rates than comparable housing.
Commissioners and staff clarified zoning details, including that M-1 typically allows a single manufactured home on a lot and that the city’s ordinance language and state law constrain spot zoning and use variances. Following questions and discussion, a commissioner moved to “take staff’s advice and deny the request” and a second was recorded; the motion was carried by voice vote. The commission’s recommendation will be placed on the City Council agenda for final action at a workshop/meeting on Monday at 5:30 p.m., where applicants are required to attend.
The commission’s action is advisory; City Council has the final authority to approve or deny the rezone request. The applicant was told she may appear before Council regardless of the commission’s recommendation.
Action recorded: motion to recommend denial of rezoning (mover: Committee member; second: Clerk; outcome: motion carried).

