Clarksville council rejects several rezoning requests, approves F&M Bank commercial site; flooding and drainage dominate debate

The Clarksville City Council on April 3 rejected three rezoning requests and defeated two others after extended public hearings in which neighbors and council members repeatedly raised concerns about drainage, sinkholes, floodplain exposure and traffic safety.

The council voted down or failed to advance first-reading zoning changes proposed for properties along Tylertown Road, West Concord Drive, Sladen Circle and Fantasy Lane, and sent one rezoning back to the Regional Planning Commission for further study. The council approved one first-reading commercial rezoning for property owned by F & M Bank and passed several finance-committee measures and resolutions on first reading.

Why it matters: multiple speakers, including nearby homeowners and developers, told the council that heavy rains this year — including flooding on Feb. 15 — have raised urgent questions about where impervious cover and new development would move stormwater. Council members repeatedly said they lacked engineering specifics at first reading and that uncertainty about drainage and traffic patterns made approval premature.

Most important outcomes

- Ordinance 66 (Bill Mace): rezoning along Tylertown Road from C-4 to C-2 failed on first reading after a motion to approve received 0 yes, 13 no. Supporters said the change would reduce intensity compared with C-4; opponents and the Regional Planning Commission cited the comprehensive plan and infrastructure concerns.

- Ordinance 67 (Rita Homes): request to rezone land north of West Concord Drive from R-2 to R-4 failed on first reading, vote 0 yes, 13 no. Neighbors and council members cited flooding, safety on a nearby curve, and FEMA floodplain concerns.

- Ordinance 68 (Hunter Winn / Sladen Circle): request from R-1 to R-2A was referred back to the Regional Planning Commission for reconsideration (motion to refer passed 8 yes, 5 no) at the applicant's request so staff and RPC can examine alternative zoning (applicant asked RPC to consider R-2 instead).

- Ordinance 69 (Hunter Winn / Tiny Town Road): request to rezone a Tiny Town Road parcel from R-1A to C-2 failed first reading (vote recorded 5 yes, 7 no). Council discussion emphasized uncertainty about whether C-2 could later allow multi-family and worried about traffic at the intersection.

- Ordinance 72 (F & M Bank): rezoning from M-3 (planned industrial) to C-5 (highway and arterial commercial) passed first reading, vote 13 yes, 0 no. The applicant's representative said the site will host a vintage motorcycle and classic car business and displays; the council approved the change.

Other council business

- Ordinance 61 (RL Home LLC): pulled from consent and later failed on second reading (6 yes, 7 no) after council members said they want the Regional Planning Commission's overlay plan for a tornado-affected area before approving additional higher-density development.

- Finance and administrative measures: Ordinance 54 (municipal court expunctions/fees) passed first reading (11 yes, 2 no); ordinances authorizing right-of-way acquisition for road improvements (Ordinance 62), conveyance of property for an EMS station (Ordinance 63), and a property swap for roadway work (Ordinance 64) passed (each recorded 13 yes, 0 no). Resolution 45 (HUD consolidated plan and annual action plan) passed (13 yes, 0 no). Resolution 46 (request RPC study zoning violations/penalties) passed (12 yes, 1 no).

What speakers said and why council acted

Developers and their representatives urged approval in several cases, saying existing zoning has sat vacant for years and that reduced-intensity zoning could be an improvement. Stanley Ross, representing the applicant for Ordinance 66, told the council his client sought C-2 because it is less intensive than the property's C-4 designation and noted a planned on-site injection well to manage stormwater for that parcel. Ricky (Ricky) Rita, speaking for Ordinance 67, argued infrastructure fixes could make sites buildable and criticized what he called a lack of city stormwater budgeting.

But residents and multiple council members pressed for engineering specifics. Neighbors testifying against rezones on West Concord and Sladen Circle described repeated flooding, vehicles running into yards at dangerous curves, repeated loss of belongings in recent storms, and long-standing drainage problems the speakers and some council members said have not been resolved. Council members, including Councilman Streetman and Councilwoman Deanna McLaughlin, said Feb. 15 flooding and ongoing, unpredictable rainfall have changed their view of higher-density rezonings in flood-prone areas.

Several council members said they were unwilling to approve first readings without site plans, traffic analyses or clearer stormwater plans. Council members who voted to send Ordinance 68 back to the Regional Planning Commission said the applicant asked for reconsideration as a different zoning classification and that RPC staff should evaluate alternatives and setbacks before a council decision.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 66 (66-20-24-25) — Bill Mace, C-4 to C-2 (first reading). Motion to approve made by Councilman Streetman. Vote: 0 yes, 13 no. Outcome: Failed.

- Ordinance 67 (67-20-24-25) — Rita Homes, R-2 to R-4 (first reading). Motion moved; vote: 0 yes, 13 no. Outcome: Failed.

- Ordinance 68 (68-20-24-25) — Hunter Winn, R-1 to R-2A (first reading). Motion to approve made; applicant requested referral and Council voted to re-refer to Regional Planning Commission (8 yes, 5 no). Outcome: Referred to RPC to consider R-2 alternative.

- Ordinance 69 (69-20-24-25) — Hunter Winn, R-1A to C-2 (first reading). Motion to approve; vote: 5 yes, 7 no. Outcome: Failed.

- Ordinance 72 (72-20-24-25) — F & M Bank, M-3 to C-5 (first reading). Motion to approve passed: 13 yes, 0 no. Outcome: Passed first reading.

- Ordinance 73 (73-20-24-25) — Diane Clevenger Pinkstaff, R-1 to R-3 (first reading). Motion to approve; vote: 0 yes, 13 no. Outcome: Failed.

- Ordinance 61 (61-20-24-25) — RL Home LLC (pulled from consent, second reading). Vote: 6 yes, 7 no. Outcome: Failed.

- Ordinance 54 (54-20-24-25) — municipal court expunctions/fees (first reading). Vote: 11 yes, 2 no. Outcome: Passed first reading.

- Ordinance 62 — right-of-way acquisition for road improvement. Vote: 13 yes, 0 no. Outcome: Passed.

- Ordinance 63 — convey property for EMS station. Vote: 13 yes, 0 no. Outcome: Passed.

- Ordinance 64 — property swap for roadway improvements. Vote: 13 yes, 0 no. Outcome: Passed.

- Resolution 45 — HUD consolidated plan and 2025 annual action plan. Vote: 13 yes, 0 no. Outcome: Adopted.

- Resolution 46 — request RPC study zoning ordinance penalties. Vote: 12 yes, 1 no. Outcome: Adopted.

What happens next

Items that failed or were referred may return to the council after additional analysis, site-plan review, traffic studies or Regional Planning Commission reconsideration. Councilmembers urged applicants and staff to develop site plans or plan-unit developments where appropriate, and several council members said they expected RPC staff to provide clearer technical recommendations on stormwater and traffic before another vote.

Ending

Council members and multiple public speakers said the recent heavy rains and flooding—cited repeatedly during the meeting—made the practical impacts of new development especially salient. Several council members urged that technical studies and clearer mitigation plans be completed before higher-density or commercial zoning changes are approved.

The council's next regular session will offer second readings and follow-ups on items that cleared first reading; applicants and neighbors can expect further public hearings if items return for reconsideration.