Neighbors Object as Council Considers Amended Special‑Use Permit for Cedar Creek Church Recreational Building

Gun Barrel City held a public hearing on a revised special‑use permit application from Cedar Creek Church of God proposing a semi‑public recreational building at 142 Rodney Drive. Several neighbors said the amended plan would increase traffic, noise and daytime activity in a quiet residential block.

Stacy Flowers, a resident at 124 E. Bar H Drive, said she has “nothing against the church or its mission,” but that the proposed development “pushes the limits of what residential neighbors should have to accept.” Flowers said her street is used as a cut‑through to Highway 198, that truck traffic has already damaged the roadway, and that planned events and gym activity would disrupt people who work from home.

Brandy Rayburn, who lives next door to the church at 117 E. 4‑H Stroud, said the neighborhood purchased homes with the expectation of a residential character and asked council to respect that. Rayburn said the documents supplied to neighbors lacked detailed building elevations and logistics and asked what would prevent the facility’s hours or operations from expanding after approval.

Britney Lewis, city planner, outlined the amendment history: council previously asked that the proposed building be shifted south on the property; the applicant instead submitted an amended plan shifting the building west to preserve a proposed future sanctuary further south. Lewis said the revised siting reduced a previously recorded 5‑foot setback to distances shown in the amended plan (including 3.56 feet and 99.63 feet at two lines), and that the applicant has indicated the current building would later be used for classrooms and offices after the sanctuary is built.

Pastor Dyson spoke on behalf of the church and described the proposed building as an insulated, spray‑foamed, two‑story metal structure that will include an interior walking track for seniors. Church representatives and their design team said additional measures for sound control and construction methods would be addressed during building design and permitting.

At the time the transcript ends, the council had opened and closed the public hearing and the planner had presented the amended special‑use application (ordinance O-2025-009). The transcript does not include a final recorded council vote on the amended ordinance in the provided excerpt; the council previously considered a version of the permit in April and asked for relocation of the building toward the south, which the applicant has now revised to a westward shift to preserve space for a sanctuary.

Residents requested clearer, stamped building plans, assurances about hours of operation and confirmation of noise‑mitigation measures before any final council approval. The city planner said those details are part of subsequent site‑plan review and permitting.