Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning Morelock topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Rogersville aldermen reject Morelock rezoning after planning commission concerns

City of Rogersville Board of Aldermen · April 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Aldermen voted down Bill 04062026A on April 6, 2026, rejecting a request to rezone Morelock property from commercial to R-3. Planning and zoning members said they had not seen Morelock’s presentation and that the proposal did not fit the comprehensive plan.

The Rogersville Board of Aldermen voted on April 6 to reject the proposed rezoning of a Morelock-owned parcel from commercial (C) to multifamily residential (R-3), failing a motion to accept the first and second readings of Bill 04062026A.

Alderman Tim Clarkson moved to accept the readings; Alderman Stucki seconded. The motion failed on a roll-call vote with aldermen Stucki, Pyle and Jeff Lee voting no and Clarkson voting yes.

Doug Thomas, a member of the planning and zoning commission, told the board that several commission members had not seen Morelock’s presentation and that the proposal did not fit the comprehensive plan. "I would like this brought back to planning and zoning," Thomas said, urging the board to allow the commission to review the presentation before any final action.

Alderman Jeff Lee said he had reviewed Morelock’s presentation and described it as a strong showing in favor of rezoning. The attorney representing Morelock asked the board to explain the denial and argued that the property “will not develop as commercial,” according to the meeting minutes.

With the motion defeated, the board did not adopt the ordinance and the rezoning request remains unresolved. Planning and zoning indicated it would revisit the matter; the board took no further action on the property at the meeting. The board adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.