Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Sweet Home topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose high-density Sweet Home Road rezoning; commission denies one request, approves another
Summary
At a Nov. 17 Cheatham County Commission meeting, dozens of residents urged commissioners to reject a proposed commercial PUD near Sweet Home Road, citing traffic and safety. The commission denied John Claxton’s rezoning request and approved a separate rezoning for Blake Cobb.
Dozens of residents told the Cheatham County Commission on Nov. 17 that a proposed commercial planned unit development on Sweet Home Road would endanger road safety and erode neighborhood character, prompting the commission to deny one rezoning request and approve another.
Residents, including state trooper Aaron Rocker and Maple Hills Homeowners Association President Christopher Spike, told commissioners that tight curves, limited sight lines and existing speeding make the stretch of Sweet Home Road unsafe for the increased traffic a 197-home development could bring. “That road cannot take that type of traffic,” said Aaron Rocker, noting frequent 60–65 mph speeds. Christopher Spike said the property is already zoned R‑1 and argued there is no community demand for commercial rezoning: “This is just a disaster waiting to happen.”
The commission voted to deny John Claxton’s request to rezone Map 26 Parcel 13 (4055 Sweet Home Road) from R‑1 to commercial mixed-use PUD after public comment and discussion. A motion to deny was moved and seconded and carried on roll call (motion recorded as carried by the presiding clerk; roll-call summary recorded 10 yes, with one abstention and one absent on the record).
Separately, the commission approved a rezoning request from Blake Cobb to change Map 39 Parcel 154.01 (2018 Milligan Road) from C‑5 to C‑1. The motion to approve was seconded and carried on roll call (11 yes, 0 no, 1 absent).
Commissioners discussed a third rezoning (John Cannon, Map 86 Parcel 93) but ultimately deferred action to allow additional notification and follow-up; that deferral passed on roll call (10 yes, 1 no, 1 absent). Several speakers, including a former planning board member and the chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals, urged commissioners to weigh long-range planning questions including infrastructure costs, density, lot setbacks and emergency response access.
The planning and zoning materials presented at the hearing included proposed adjustments to lot sizes and conditional-use standards; staff noted the full text of the proposed amendments is available from the building department. The commission also took a block vote approving miscellaneous zoning‑resolution amendments (sections 9.0805, 9.0915, 9.1 and 9.11) after discussion and a roll call.
The commission said items denied or deferred can be refiled or returned to the December agenda per standard process. The public hearing portion of the meeting closed at 6:47 p.m.
