Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Walker Trucking Ashland City Highway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council withdraws rezoning for 5000 Ashland City Highway after community objections and legal findings
Summary
Councilmember Joy Kimbrough withdrew BL2025-896, a proposed rezoning at 5000 Ashland City Highway, following extensive public comment citing zoning enforcement actions and prior environmental court findings that characterized the site's use as an industrial trucking operation.
Councilmember Joy Kimbrough withdrew BL2025-896 — a proposed rezoning for property at 5000 Ashland City Highway — during the July 15 meeting after a protracted public comment period in which neighbors and public commenters urged rejection and cited ongoing code enforcement and environmental court findings.
The ordinance had sought to change property zoning from AR2A (rural agricultural) to SP to permit building‑contractor‑supply uses on approximately five acres. Kimbrough announced the withdrawal on the chamber floor immediately after the public comment segment; the chair confirmed the withdrawal and told the public the bill would not move forward at this time.
Speakers representing nearby neighborhoods described a pattern of alleged noncompliant industrial activity at the site. Joseph Engel read portions of the environmental court’s agreed facts into the record, including that Metro codes investigators had documented seven violations, the zoning administrator categorized the use as “building contractor supply” (an industrial use not allowed in AR2A), stop‑work orders had been posted and later removed, and a warrant had been filed alleging Metro code violations. Engel told the council the environmental court “closed this operation down except for refueling in the gas tank area every day from 4 to 6, and the court will rule on that once this body rules on the SP.”
Other speakers said they lived near the property and described truck traffic, quarry activity and dust, and expressed safety and health concerns. Kathleen Wolf noted counsel and engineers had been present at prior hearings and questioned assertions by the property owner that he did not know the land’s zoning restrictions.
Council members and staff confirmed the withdrawal on the record. Kimbrough told the chamber, “I’d like to withdraw the bill,” and the vice mayor stated that the bill is withdrawn and “is no longer on our agenda and will not be moving forward in the process at this time.”
What this means: Withdrawal removes the rezoning proposal from the council’s current process; the sponsor can refile a new proposal at a later date or pursue alternative avenues, but the council will not take further action on this specific bill now. Multiple public commenters asked the council to enforce zoning and to consider the environmental court findings in future decisions affecting the site.
