Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Mcmurray C2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sends McMurray Boulevard rezoning to county with unfavorable recommendation over traffic concerns
Summary
A request to rezone a small parcel on East McMurray Boulevard from R‑1 to C‑2 drew heavy neighborhood opposition focused on narrow Turner Drive and child‑safety concerns; the Planning Commission first failed a favorable recommendation and then voted 6‑3 to send an unfavorable recommendation to the county commission citing traffic and safety.
The Planning Commission considered a request to rezone a 10,407‑square‑foot parcel at 799 East McMurray Boulevard from R‑1 to C‑2 and ultimately voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the county commission because of traffic and safety concerns on the adjacent Turner Drive.
Linda Burge of RE/MAX spoke for the applicant (listed as Peggy Joyce Hicks) and described the parcel as appropriate for low‑impact commercial uses—offices, small service businesses or retail—given its location on McMurray Boulevard. Planning staff (Amanda) recommended approval, noting water and sewer utilities at the street and that the small parcel is physically suitable for commercial transition.
Multiple Turner Drive residents and email correspondents raised safety concerns. Resident Decker’s daughter (Lee Decker email referenced) and resident Leigh Gray (who identified herself as a Turner Drive resident raising children there) described Turner Drive as narrow, with children playing in the street and limited room for vehicle maneuvers; Gray said a car previously struck a house on that road. Rosalie, planning staff, summarized residents’ emailed concerns about hours of operation, buffering, parking, and the safety of children. Rosalie also noted the property’s small size limits how much parking or buffering can be accommodated.
Commissioners debated parking requirements, the parcel’s small size and the road geometry. An initial motion to recommend approval failed on a voice/show‑of‑hands vote (3 in favor, 6 opposed). A subsequent motion to send an unfavorable recommendation—“due to concern of traffic and safety”—passed 6‑3. Commissioners emphasized that the county commission will make the ultimate decision and encouraged residents to attend that hearing.
Because the record shows competing views—staff recommended approval while multiple neighbors opposed—the item will be considered next by the Triostal County Commission, where residents can present their concerns again prior to final action.
