Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 219 Pleasant Plains topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects rezoning for 219 Pleasant Plains Road after residents oppose office plan
Summary
After public comment and debate, Jackson City Council voted not to rezoning 219 Pleasant Plains Road from single‑family to office on second reading; residents cited traffic and property‑value concerns while the developer and two supporters argued a single commercial use would produce less traffic than a subdivision.
Mayor Scott Conger presided over a divided council July 7 as members declined to approve the second‑reading rezoning of 219 Pleasant Plains Road from RS-1 single‑family to O‑office.
Mark Thompson, a resident who said he lives about a half mile from the intersection at Pleasant Plains Road and Lehi Road, urged the council to reject the rezoning. "Public safety should above all be the top of the list when considering rezoning," Thompson said, citing online property‑assessment records and local traffic concerns.
Developer Joel McAlexander, a licensed professional engineer, told the council he had owned and maintained the parcel for years and said a single business — several banks had expressed interest, he said — would generate less traffic than an 8–10‑lot residential subdivision. "We have about three different banks that are interested in it," McAlexander said, adding that no contracts could be signed before ownership was secured.
Local builder and broker Alex Holman supported the rezoning, saying a bank or office would be an appropriate use for the corner and that a controlled entrance would limit traffic. "I don't think it would sell immediately with it being on the corner," Holman said, disputing a claim that the lot would quickly sell as residential.
On second reading, the council voted to reject the rezoning. The transcript records a split vote that the clerk announced as four in favor, four opposed and one abstention; the motion therefore failed on the floor. The council did not record additional conditions, and no amendment or referral was taken on the motion.
The rezoning had been discussed at length during public comment and on first reading, where planning staff noted the parcel's land‑use history in the Crossings/Exeter Place area and concerns previously raised about convenience‑store proposals at the site. The council moved on to other agenda business after announcing the result.
