Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clarksville council rejects rezoning request for Pollard Road property after neighbors cite traffic, character concerns
Summary
After an emotional public hearing with residents and the applicant, the City Council voted 0–12 to reject the first-reading rezoning request (Ordinance 27) to change a Pollard Road parcel to R-4 multiple-family residential.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Clarksville City Council voted 0–12 on first reading to deny Ordinance 27, which would have amended the zoning map to change a parcel fronting on the north side of Pollard Road from R-1 and R-3 to R-4 multiple-family residential.
The proposal was presented at the public hearing by applicant Chris Doherty, who said he and two inheriting partners planned the request in part to make the property more financially sustainable and cited family health circumstances. “I’m expecting my first grandchild,” Doherty said while describing family and caregiving needs and why the current layout did not meet market demand.
Nearby residents opposed the rezoning. Michael Dillon said he circulated a packet of signatures from property owners and renters around the site opposing the R-4 designation; another speaker, Anthony Wood, described safety concerns on the existing road and said crashes had occurred near the site. Speakers repeatedly raised worries about increased traffic, headlights shining into homes, and the effect on property values.
Council debate focused on traffic capacity and neighborhood character. Council members said the property sits within an area zoned primarily R-1 on three sides and warned that approving R-4 would set a precedent that could prompt further higher-density development along Pollard Road. Councilman Chandler cited existing congestion and lack of sidewalks and said he could not support the change. After discussion, Councilman Streetman made the motion in the form of approval per legal advice; the motion failed with 0 yes, 12 no, 0 abstain.
The denial leaves the parcel at its current residential designations for now. Because the vote was on first reading, the applicant may return with a revised request at a future meeting.

