Montgomery council denies lifting zoning restriction for Ray Thornton Road property after neighborhood safety concerns

The Montgomery City Council voted 7–2 on Nov. 4 to deny a request to remove a restrictive condition on a B‑3 parcel at 1740 Ray Thornton Road that would have allowed broad retail uses, including a Dollar General-style store.

The request, presented by Mark Davis on behalf of property owners Dr. Scott Griffin and Dr. Bill Van Hooser, sought to lift a decades-old restriction that currently limits use to a veterinary clinic or an office. Davis said the condition has left the two-acre site effectively unmarketable and cited a planning commission 7–2 recommendation in favor of lifting the restriction.

Ben Barry of Barry Engineers, representing a potential developer, told the council the site’s location on a major thoroughfare and its proximity to schools and ballfields make it convenient for customers and suitable for a small retail store. “It really seems like the highest and best use for this property to not sit vacant for 20 years,” Barry said.

Neighbors pushed back during the public hearing. Martin Beeman, a retired civil engineer and former Montgomery Police homicide investigator, warned that adding high‑traffic retail near Blunt Elementary and Johnny Carr Middle School would increase collision risk and policing response times. “Introducing a retail store … could disrupt that safety,” Beeman said, citing traffic and theft concerns.

Ken Garrett, president of the Breckenridge Homeowners Association, said neighborhood leaders had met with the owner and found no new site plans, traffic studies or mitigation measures. Garrett urged the council to seek non‑retail alternatives, such as professional offices or a medical clinic, to preserve neighborhood quality.

Ariel Gonzales, representing nearby residents, argued the proposal failed to address safety, traffic, and future residential growth near the site and said residents had even tried to buy the land to prevent a Dollar General.

Dr. Bill Van Hooser, one of the property owners, said he wanted to sell the parcel and believed the proposed retail use would benefit the city by bringing business and revenue.

After discussion among council members, one council member made a motion to deny the request. The clerk announced the vote was 7 in favor of denying the change and 2 opposed. The motion to deny carried, leaving the restrictive condition in place.

What happens next: With the restriction retained, the property will remain limited to its current conditional uses unless the owners pursue a new proposal or the planning commission and council revisit the matter in the future.