Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning Ashton Highway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission disapproves rezoning request for contractor-supply parking lot off Ashland City Highway
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to disapprove a request to rezone 5000 Ashland City Highway to allow a building-contractor-supply use and truck parking, citing conflicts with the T2 rural maintenance policy and residents’ testimony of code violations at the site.
The Planning Commission voted to disapprove a regulatory specific-plan (SP) rezoning request for property at 5000 Ashland City Highway after staff recommended disapproval, saying the requested building-contractor-supply use would conflict with the area’s T2 rural maintenance land-use policy and would introduce an industrial character to a rural corridor.
Dustin Shane, staff planner, described the request as a zone change from AR2a (agricultural residential) to a regulatory SP that would allow the current owner to formalize a contractor supply use and truck parking. Shane said the zoning and the UDO’s T2 rural maintenance policy emphasize preserving rural character and residential/agricultural aesthetics; staff concluded the SP “does not maintain rural character” and recommended disapproval.
Neighbors and area residents who spoke during the public hearing described the site’s recent history and code enforcement activity. Sumter Camp, a resident, testified that a grading permit had described “tractor storage” but inspectors later found a paved area used to park 15 or more dump trucks; he said stop-work and stop-use orders were posted but the lot continued to operate and that codes had charged the property owner with multiple violations now pending in Metro environmental court.
Applicant representatives Roy Dale and Tom White acknowledged the site’s visibility and described prior permitting and stormwater approvals; they told commissioners they would accept a set of conditions proposed by staff if the commission approved the SP. Dale said he sought to use the regulatory SP to add restrictions and buffering that would make the current use “fit a little bit better” than the existing situation.
After public comment and commissioner discussion, a motion to accept staff’s recommendation to disapprove the SP was made and seconded; the chair called the vote and the motion carried. The commission chair declared: “The item is disapproved.”
Why this matters: the decision upholds the T2 rural maintenance land-use policy and leaves in place the existing AR2a zoning; neighbors and staff framed the vote around both policy consistency and ongoing code-enforcement concerns.
Ending: The commission’s disapproval is a recommendation that affects subsequent legislative processes; the applicant and neighbors may pursue appeals or further action with the Metro Council or through enforcement channels.
