Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board finds activities at 865 Cole Road inconsistent with C‑2 zoning after residents’ complaints
Summary
After hearing residents’ photos, staff findings and the owner’s defense, Jefferson County’s BZA voted 3–2 that operations at 865 Cole Road do not fit the C‑2 general commercial district and should be brought into compliance.
The Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3–2 on June 23 to conclude that the operations at 865 Cole Road in Jefferson City are not consistent with the county’s C‑2 general commercial zoning, a decision that follows months of complaints from neighbors about heavy equipment, traffic and potential runoff.
Residents who live along Cole Road told the board they are seeing multiple drilling rigs, grout plants, trailers and heavy vehicles staged on the site and sometimes parked on the roadway. “This business should not have been located in our area in the first place,” said Lisa Williams, who identified herself as living at 927 Cole Road and asked the board to prevent expansion onto adjacent acreage.
The motion to find the use out of compliance, made by board member David Nelson and seconded by Sue Springfield, followed detailed testimony from neighbors and a staff review. Zoning officer Stephanie Ruston said she received a complaint in late 2025, inspected the site with staff in February 2026 and collected ongoing photographic evidence sent by residents showing long-haul trailers, drill rigs and a concrete wash pad.
The property owner’s representative, Brad Prenchaw, told the board the site functions primarily as a yard: office space for job preparation, repair and temporary equipment storage in support of projects whose work takes place at client sites. “We do absolutely no actual per se work associated with construction at that location,” he said, describing the yard as consistent with the county’s commercial categories for professional services and rental/repair activity.
Planning staff disagreed. County planner Katherine Baldwin told the board the C‑2 district is intended for businesses that serve the public from high‑visibility corridors — retail, convenience services and professional offices — and said the scale and outdoor storage observed at the Cole Road site better match industrial uses or an outdoor storage yard. “I don’t see how this is compatible with any of the business activities that are allowed as principal uses in the C‑2 district,” Baldwin said.
County attorney Doug reminded members that the BZA acts in a quasi‑judicial capacity and must weigh evidence presented tonight by neighbors, staff and the property representatives. After brief discussion, the BZA voted that the current operations are not consistent with C‑2 zoning. The motion passed 3–2.
Next steps: the zoning officer said staff will contact the owner to initiate compliance work and, if necessary, pursue enforcement or a zoning change. Neighbors were advised they may also seek civil remedies under subdivision deed restrictions separate from county enforcement. The board did not adopt specific remedial orders at the meeting; enforcement timelines will be determined by staff and legal counsel.
