Neighbors prevail for now as council tables vacating Rees Avenue cul‑de‑sac

The Evansville Common Council on March 9 voted to table consideration of ordinance G2026-06, a petition to vacate an unimproved, platted cul‑de‑sac (described with a common address of 3505 Rice Avenue) so the petitioner could place a driveway and build a single‑family home.

Brett Sturmerson of Morley, representing the petitioner Heitor Altarai, told the council the owner intends the parcel for a single‑family residence and has no present plans for apartments. Sturmerson read a statement from his client: “At this time, the property is intended solely as a single family residential home for me and my family. There are no plans to create apartments on the property.” He described floodplain constraints, easements granted to Evansville Water and Sewer, and said that parts of the parcel lie in a flood zone which limits development.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment disputed the condition of the roadway and said they fear increased traffic or future higher‑density development given the site’s R4 zoning. Billy Curry, who said he has lived on Rees Avenue since 1991, told the council the road has deteriorated and described a prior requirement that a letter of credit or other guarantee be provided before a builder could proceed. Mary Brown, a 33‑year resident, said she and other neighbors want to protect the character of the street but are not opposed to single‑family building if protections are put in place.

Council members pressed for additional information about whether the petitioner or future owner would be required to bring the road to city standards, whether a letter of credit is required, and whether a use‑and‑development commitment (UDC) or covenant could be attached to a vacation. Staff and the petitioner said some engineering conditions would apply (concrete apron at the end of Rees Avenue, easements for utilities), and the petitioner said he would participate in fair maintenance and repair any damage caused during construction.

Several councilors requested time for the petitioner to meet neighbors and to explore options such as a UDC or voluntary covenant. One councilor moved to table the item to the March 30 meeting to allow those conversations; the motion carried. The item will return to council on March 30 for further consideration.

No rezoning was before the council that night; councilors repeatedly noted the property remains zoned R4, and that zoning remains the controlling factor for permitted uses unless changed through a separate process.

The petition’s request to vacate remains under consideration; the council did not adopt the vacation on March 9.