Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelbyville council approves multiple zoning map amendments for parcels across Bedford County
Summary
On June 12, 2025, the Shelbyville City Council approved a series of ordinances amending the city zoning map for several privately and city‑owned parcels, changing allowable uses on sites ranging from 0.33 to 30.35 acres.
Shelbyville City Council on June 12 approved ordinances amending the city zoning map for several parcels across Bedford County, changing the zoning classifications for multiple properties including privately owned lots and city‑owned land.
The council approved rezoning for the following parcels: approximately 8.75 acres owned by Pleasant M. England at 138 MacDale Lane (from R‑2, medium‑low density residential, to R‑4, high‑density residential); approximately 14.77 acres owned by Kearl Properties LLC (from R‑1, low density residential, to C‑2, general business); a split‑zone parcel of about 7.23 acres owned by Curl Properties LLC (rezoned in part to C‑2, general business); a 0.41‑acre vacant parcel owned by Wayne Neese at West Lane Street (from R‑3 to R‑3A, medium‑high density residential); a 0.33‑acre parcel owned by the Shelbyville Industrial Development Board at 218 Eagle Boulevard (from C‑2 to I‑2, general industrial); and a 30.35‑acre city‑owned parcel referenced as tax map 59 parcel 14 (from C‑2 to I‑1, light industrial).
The ordinances were presented in final reading by the city attorney and called for repeal of any conflicting ordinance language. City Attorney Ginger Shafter read the captions as part of the final reading process. Roll‑call votes were taken for each ordinance as required; the recorded responses during those roll calls were affirmatives for the items listed above.
The rezoning approvals change the permitted uses and development standards that apply to those parcels on the Shelbyville zoning map and therefore affect future development and permitting processes for each site. The council did not discuss specific development proposals tied to every rezoned parcel during the final readings documented in the transcript.
No public speakers were recorded as addressing these rezoning items during the public‑hearing period that preceded the final readings. The council's action on these ordinances consisted of final‑reading votes after the required public‑hearing procedure and caption readings.
