Neighbors oppose rezoning request to legalize truck-parking lot at 5000 Ashland City Highway; council defers vote

Neighbors in the Bells Bend/Scottsboro area urged the Metropolitan Council to reject a rezoning request that would permit building-contractor-supply and truck-parking uses at 5000 Ashland City Highway, a site already being used as a truck lot by Walker Trucking.

Councilmember Joy Kimbrough sponsored the rezoning ordinance and said she had held multiple community meetings on the project. The developer and the property owner described the parcel as prepared and landscaped and said they wanted a permanent, permitted location for equipment and trucks. “I am the owner of 5000 Highway 12. I...am so sorry that we did not I didn't had no clue that it was not the correct zoning that we are needing,” said Jason Walker, the lot’s owner, in public testimony.

Opponents presented a different history. Several residents and local advocates said the lot was created by fill and grading under an application the speakers say misrepresented the work as agricultural tractor storage rather than an industrial truck yard. Joe Engel, one of the opposing speakers, read the pending environmental court complaint into the record: “At no time has Metro observed agricultural activities taking place on the property. Metro asserts that the property is being used not for agricultural purposes but for defendant's commercial trucking business... The Metro zoning administrator has categorized defendant's use of the property as, quote, building contractor supply,” he said, quoting General Sessions filings.

Residents described noise, truck traffic, dust, and light impacts and said the site is close to Mill Creek and conservation areas that serve as an urban‑forest corridor for the city. “Removing this forest and allowing industry to proliferate in Antioch isn't just marginalization. It is targeted,” one speaker said.

The planning commission had recommended disapproval (6–0), citing the community plan’s conservation policy (T2 rural maintenance) and noting that “building contractor supply” is an industrial use that is inconsistent with the requested land use. Planning staff explained that the proposed specific plan would allow uses currently prohibited by the zoning and that the applicant proposed buffers, hours limits and lighting controls as mitigation.

Council discussion was lengthy. Several councilmembers said they had reviewed community petitions and documentation from both sides. Sponsor Kimbrough said she had sought compromise language that would preserve residential frontage along Dennis Drive and limit short‑term rental eligibility on that frontage while allowing the developer to proceed with a commercial plan. Neighbors disputed the outreach and said many signed petitions against the rezoning and that code enforcement cases were pending.

After hours of testimony and debate, Councilmember Ellis moved to defer the ordinance one meeting to give the sponsor time to hold another community meeting and for staff to gather additional information; that motion passed 14–13. The item is set for the council’s next meeting for continued consideration.

The item remains contentious: opponents point to pending code enforcement and a General Sessions entry listing multiple violations; supporters emphasize community outreach, mitigation measures proposed in the specific plan and the property owner’s claim that the lot provides a safer, consolidated location for his company's operations. The planning commission’s 6–0 disapproval stands as the ordinance returns to the council for further review.