Council rejects planned truck drop yard at East Shelby Drive after residents and landowners raise safety, traffic and access concerns

The Memphis City Council on May 20 voted to deny a planned development that would have created a secured truck drop yard and associated services near East Shelby Drive, about 700 feet west of Tullahoma Road (case PD24-13). The Division of Planning and Development and the Land Use Control Board had recommended rejection; council members and residents voiced a mix of support and opposition at a lengthy public hearing.

Proponents, including the project representatives, said the facility would provide secure parking, reduce cargo theft and cut diesel idling by using an "idle-free" parking system that supplies electricity to parked trucks so drivers can shut engines off during required rest periods. A presenter cited U.S. Department of Transportation data saying roughly 48,724 commercial trucks are domiciled in Shelby County and said unsecured parking accounts for a far greater share of cargo-theft incidents than secured parking.

Supporters also described proposed on-site security features — AI perimeter cameras, high-intensity lighting, trailer backstops to prevent door access and 8-foot fencing — and said the project would include a community food-truck area and a community garden component, and that some neighbors and the Oak Haven Mobile Home Park had provided letters of support.

Opponents and nearby property owners raised concerns about increased truck traffic on Shelby Drive, safety risks on a road several speakers described as high-speed, air-quality impacts from added truck activity, and crime and nuisance issues often associated with truck-stop sites. Landowner O'Rain M. Cornish said the project as presented could leave him landlocked; he said he had poured footings to secure fencing on a lot he owns and asked that any approval include conditions protecting his access rights. Cornish said he had attempted to contact project representatives previously about access issues.

Neighbors, including residents from nearby subdivisions, said the area already suffers from heavy traffic and that a yard serving large commercial trucks would worsen conditions. Several public commenters urged the council to locate the facility in a less residential corridor such as areas closer to interstate approaches or farther from populated neighborhoods.

Council members asked about evidence of idling and cargo-theft heat maps; presenters provided photos and a heat map previously presented by police that showed cargo-theft concentration in the area. Council members also asked about petitioner outreach and letters of support; project presenters said they had nine letters of support and one formal letter from Oak Haven Mobile Home Park.

The motion to approve the planned development was made from the committee and seconded; when the council voted, the recorded vote produced a majority against the item and chair announced "That item fails," meaning the planned development was not approved by the council.