Shelbyville council approves several rezonings, rejects one and defers another after resident concerns

Shelbyville’s City Council on Dec. 12 approved multiple land‑use items, voted down one zoning proposal and deferred another after residents and council members raised concerns about flooding, fencing, addresses and traffic near proposed developments.

On second reading the council approved an ordinance rezoning a 0.43‑acre parcel owned by John K. Harrison from R2 (medium‑density residential) to R4 (high‑density residential); the city attorney read the caption and the council recorded affirmative votes. The council also approved a separate second‑reading ordinance rezoning about 10.36 acres owned by Richard M. and Kristen B. Wilhelm from R1 (low‑density residential) to C2 (general business) and approved two resolutions to de‑annex parcels referenced in county tax maps.

Earlier in the meeting a rezoning request for approximately 6.8 acres (DCC Strategic Realty Partners) was presented on first reading with an unfavorable recommendation from the planning commission. After discussion a motion "not to approve" passed and the mayor announced the ordinance failed on first reading and would not return to council.

A different rezoning for approximately 5.85 acres at 900 Whitbourne Street (also DCC Strategic Realty Partners) was presented on first reading with a favorable planning commission recommendation, but several council members and a resident raised issues: duplicate or confusing addresses for duplex units, lack of recorded comments from police and fire, intersection safety and whether promised intersection improvements would be concrete obligations. Council voted to defer that item to the January study session and business meeting for further discussion with the developer.

Council also approved a first‑reading ordinance rezoning about 1.7 acres at 426 Dover Street from R1 to R2, after a favorable planning commission recommendation. During public comment earlier, resident Patrick Schmitz described flooding onto his property during prior nearby construction and said a developer had failed to deliver a promised privacy fence; council members noted they would investigate whether a barrier or code enforcement action was required.

The council recorded roll‑call and voice votes for the foregoing items and asked staff to follow up with planning and code regarding barriers, address confusion and agency comments before the deferred item returns to council.