Commission rejects Twinwood planned development after traffic and compatibility concerns

Shelby County commissioners on Aug. 24 rejected a planned‑development rezoning request for about 53 acres along Houston‑Levy Road known as the Twinwood PD (PD2026‑012), after planning staff said the site’s nearby two‑lane roadways and the lack of funded widening plans made employment uses incompatible with the surrounding area.

Chloe Christian of the Division of Planning and Development told the commission staff recommended rejection, saying the area’s character, road widths and the absence of current MPO road projects made the heavier industrial uses inappropriate. "This plan will have a detrimental, or undue effect on the adjacent property and the character of the neighborhood," Christian said during the presentation. The Land Use Control Board had earlier recommended approval 5–3 after the applicant submitted a conditioned plan development.

Applicant Beau Chambliss of Chambliss Capital and counsel Dedrick Bridal said the proposal was a conditioned employment plan that targeted low‑impact uses such as self‑storage and small‑bay flex space and that developer‑driven frontage dedications would fund localized roadway improvements. "Approval does" the roadway work, Chambliss said, arguing that developing the property would require the developer to dedicate and improve frontage. Commissioners pressed the applicant on the scale of likely truck traffic, wage levels for prospective jobs and how much of the 53 acres would be occupied by self‑storage versus employment uses.

Commissioners raised safety and timing concerns about widening Houston‑Levy and the two‑lane connecting segments, and some said they were unconvinced developer commitments would address nearby apartment and single‑family traffic patterns. After discussion the motion to approve the PD failed on a recorded vote: 3 ayes, 9 noes. The defeat keeps the property in its existing conservation‑agriculture designation and preserves the county engineer’s current standards for any future development.

What’s next: the developer may revise and return with new conditions or pursue development under current CA (conservation agriculture) rules; any future rezoning or PD request would return to the planning review and public hearing process.