Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner seeks rezoning of 9231 Bates Trail; neighbors voice opposition at public hearing

Hickman County Board of Commissioners · October 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a public hearing on Oct. 27, property owner Lily Page asked the Hickman County Board of Commissioners to rezone 9231 Bates Trail from A‑1 to R‑1; nearby residents spoke in opposition. No vote was taken on resolution 25‑32.

Lily Page, owner of 9231 Bates Trail, told the Hickman County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 27 that she is seeking rezoning of her property from A‑1 to R‑1 to allow single‑family residential use and to align with the county growth area.

"This is my second rezoning application for the property," Page said, and she cited TCA 13‑7‑101 and section 4.042 of the Hickman County rezoning resolution to assert the request follows state and local rezoning requirements. Page said the property already has access to nearby public utilities and school services and argued the change would be consistent with surrounding development patterns.

A neighbor, Leslie Hudgins, spoke in opposition on behalf of Bates Trail residents and said community opposition remains unchanged from a prior hearing. Commissioners did not vote on resolution 25‑32 at the Oct. 27 meeting; the item was heard during the public comment period and will return for later action.

During her remarks Page cited recent rezoning examples in the county and told commissioners she intends to keep the property and build a single‑family home adjacent to existing residences. Hudgins provided brief rebuttal comments from residents opposing the change and thanked commissioners for their previous votes against earlier applications.

Because no formal motion or vote on resolution 25‑32 was recorded, the board took no final action on the item at this meeting.