Commission denies rezoning of former drive‑in on Highway 70 after residents cite safety concerns

Dickson County commissioners voted on Nov. 17 to deny a rezoning request for roughly 15–16 acres at 3020 Highway 70 E, the site of the former drive‑in theater, after a string of public comments and a negative planning commission recommendation.

Andrew Mills, representing the planning commission, told the commission the application sought to change large portions of the property from A‑1 agriculture and C‑2 commercial to R‑3 residential, and said the planning commission issued a unanimous unfavorable recommendation on the application. "This is a rezoning request regarding 3020 Highway 70 East... The proposal is to convert the A‑1 property to R‑3 and reduce the size of the C‑2 property to add a little bit more R‑3 in there," Mills said during the presentation.

Residents who live near the site addressed the commission during the public hearing and argued the change would worsen an already dangerous stretch of road. "We moved out there to be in the country, not to be in the city," said Dale Brown, who lives on Highway 70, citing frequent accidents, narrow shoulders and a nearby spring and gas main that limit road widening. Ty Korlew, whose home sits on a narrow loop off Buddy Road, told commissioners the roads are "hardly wide enough for two vehicles to pass" and warned that R‑3 zoning would allow a wide range of housing types.

Other speakers included former business owner Don Hixson and residents Dale Corlew, Dave Downing and Mark Tennold, who raised similar concerns about traffic, emergency access and impacts on neighborhood character and property values.

After public comment, Commissioner Williams moved to deny the application; the motion received a second and was carried by the commission. Chair announced, "The ayes have it," concluding the matter for this meeting.

The denial follows the planning commission's unanimous unfavorable recommendation and means the applicant will not advance on the county's agenda in this form. The commission's action was a formal vote to deny moving the rezoning forward that evening; commissioners and staff did not record a subsequent approval for any modified proposal at the Nov. 17 session.

The applicant had the opportunity to address the commission but was not recorded as speaking during the public hearing. The commission did not adopt alternative conditions or a revised plan during the meeting; next steps would be for the applicant to pursue a new application or appeal according to county procedures.