Blount County holds public hearing on rezoning request for 4750 East Lamar Alexander Parkway

Blount County officials opened a zoning public hearing on May 14, 2026, to consider a request to change a 3.75-acre portion of a 5.069-acre tract at 4750 East Lamar Alexander Parkway from R1 (Bridal District 1) to RAC (Bridal Arterial Commercial District).

The clerk read the rezoning notice, locating the property at Tax map 60, Parcel 182.16, and the chair opened the floor for public comment, instructing speakers to state their name and district and to limit remarks to three minutes. The chair also reiterated that the item before the commission was the rezoning of the specified acreage.

Terry Klosick, who identified himself as a Democratic representative and a candidate for county commissioner in District 1, said he believed the parcel was connected to the Pellissippi Parkway project and asked whether “this piece of property the property that Walmart has owned for 10 years and it now wants to break ground.” He also said many people oppose the Parkway, telling the commission, “People are watching. People are listening.” The chair interrupted to ask Klosick to confine remarks to the rezoning itself.

Richard Copeland, a resident of Baxter Estates in Maryville, said he learned about the hearing on Facebook and criticized public notification, saying, “I found out about this on Facebook… Never did I see anything on the news.” Copeland said his main concern was traffic on Sevierville Road if the Parkway extension proceeds; the chair responded that the hearing was limited to the rezoning on East Lamar Alexander Parkway.

The public hearing closed after no other speakers came forward. No formal motion or vote on the rezoning was recorded in the hearing transcript.

The matter considered was the rezoning request as read by the clerk; the transcript records both a 3.75-acre figure (clerk) and the chair’s later reference to 3.758 acres. The parcel is listed in the call as Tax map 60, Parcel 182.16. The commission did not resolve questions raised about property ownership, project timing, or traffic impacts during the public-comment period; those concerns were raised by members of the public and not answered in the hearing record.

Next steps for the rezoning request were not specified in the transcript; the commission closed the public-comment portion of the zoning hearing at the end of the session.