Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen reject rezoning for parcel behind Lone Park; neighbors and owner spar over upgrades and conditions
Summary
Bolivar aldermen voted 6–2 to reject Ordinance 4117, a proposed rezoning of land at 2015 S. Morrisville Road to expand a manufactured-housing district. The applicant said he is prepared to bring units into compliance; neighbors and some aldermen sought guarantees on paving, fencing and density before approving new lots.
The Bolivar Board of Aldermen rejected a rezoning request for property at 2015 S. Morrisville Road after extended public comment and council debate.
Ordinance 4117 (Bill 2026-10) would have changed a portion of a parcel adjacent to an existing manufactured housing area to a manufactured housing district. Planning and zoning had recommended approval, but neighbors and several aldermen raised concerns about nonconforming conditions—particularly road paving, fencing and the number of units that could be placed under current density rules.
Applicant Martin Tyler told the board his ownership group has removed a dilapidated trailer, will add skirting to units, and plans mailboxes and road repairs; he asked for flexibility to phase improvements to avoid tearing out recent paving. Tyler said he would like “to do it by the books” and asked for a conditional or developer agreement that would allow time to bring the full site into compliance.
Several aldermen said they did not oppose providing an eventual path forward but wanted either a developer’s agreement, a planned-development overlay (MHD‑P) or a return to planning and zoning to reconsider density rules. One alderman said the board could, if it wished, deny this application and encourage the applicant to work with staff on a different application.
The council moved to a second reading and then held a roll-call vote. The clerk recorded two votes in favor (Aldermen Neil and Saggerser) and six against (Aldermen Ross, Ballard, Wilson, Price, Raines and Sawyer), and the motion failed.
After the vote some members discussed waiving fees if the applicant returns with a different application, and staff indicated the board can waive planning fees. The applicant and staff were advised to consult with planning personnel on possible conditional approaches, developer agreements or a planned development overlay should the owner decide to reapply.
The transcript shows detailed discussion about the difference between nonconforming and in-violation conditions, how new lots would have to meet current standards (paving, fencing), and how density limits (eight units per acre cited) could result in a higher theoretical maximum than the applicant intends.
