In a recent council meeting, a contentious debate unfolded regarding a proposed zoning change for a property located at the busy intersection of Highway 59 and Sharp Road. The property owner, Mr. Cox, is seeking to rezone the land from residential to commercial, arguing that the high traffic volume—approximately 30,000 vehicles daily—makes it an ideal location for businesses. He highlighted the lack of commercial zoning in the area and expressed frustration over the challenges of maintaining a residential property adjacent to a roundabout.

Cox emphasized that the property has attracted interest from various commercial entities, including restaurants and banks, but no offers for residential development. He argued that the best use of the property is commercial, given its location and traffic counts, which he claims have significantly increased since the last assessment in 2005.

Opposition from local residents was strong, with several speakers voicing concerns about the potential negative impact on their community. They argued that the property has always been zoned for residential use and that changing it to commercial would disrupt the character of the neighborhood. Residents pointed out that the property was purchased as residential and expressed skepticism about Cox's claims of commercial interest, noting that he has never listed the property with a real estate agent.

Concerns were also raised about safety, particularly regarding access to the property from the busy roundabout. Residents argued that the roundabout's presence makes the property unsuitable for residential living, questioning the feasibility of raising children in such a location.

The council members expressed mixed feelings about the proposal. Some acknowledged the challenges posed by the roundabout and the potential for commercial development, while others were hesitant to approve a zoning change that could permanently alter the neighborhood's landscape. The discussion highlighted the complexities of balancing property rights with community interests.

Ultimately, the council decided to postpone the decision, seeking further clarification on the legal status of the property and its zoning history. The outcome remains uncertain as both sides await further deliberation on the matter.