Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Crossland Pappas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matthews board continues Crossland-Pappas rezoning after residents raise concerns
Summary
The Board of Commissioners unanimously continued a rezoning application for the Crossland-Pappas project at 1700 East John Street to May 12, 2025, after neighbors said the proposal would create high-density development out of character with nearby single-family neighborhoods and raised pedestrian-safety and signage concerns.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Crossland Pappas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Matthews Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Feb. 10 to continue a public hearing on zoning application 2024797, a rezoning request tied to the Crossland-Pappas development at 1700 East John Street, to May 12, 2025.
The continuation was requested by the applicant and recommended by staff; commissioners approved the date-certain delay so the proposal can be further vetted. The motion to continue was made by Commissioner Ken McCool and seconded by Commissioner John Urban; it passed unanimously.
Why it matters: Neighbors said the multi-phase Crossland-Pappas plan would substantially increase housing density near the Brightmoor community and along the John Street corridor. At public comment, longtime Brightmoor resident Dennis Bray said the project, if built to the applicant’s earlier layouts, would add “700 and 15 residential units” in phases and create a “mini-downtown” divided by a high-speed connector the board had previously criticized. Jim Dedmon, another Brightmoor resident, said Matthews’ appeal is its neighborhoods and expressed opposition to additional high-density housing.
What was said: Bray told the board the proposal would create “a little town” with the traffic and pedestrian pressures of a downtown next to I‑485, and he argued the rezoning would be out of character with nearby R‑12 zoned neighborhoods. The applicant’s representative, Peter Pappas, told the board the requested 90‑day continuance was intended to further study a town-requested workforce/workplace component.
Staff context: Planning staff introduced the item as continued from December and recommended the applicant’s continuance request to allow additional analysis and outreach. The board noted that anyone who came specifically to speak on the item could do so at this meeting or at the later hearing.
Next steps: The application will be back on the commissioners’ agenda on May 12, 2025. The board’s continuance preserves the right of any interested resident to testify at that later hearing.
Speakers quoted or cited in this article spoke during the public hearing or the public‑comment period; minutes and transcripts show the relevant remarks.

