Council denies Parker Lane rezoning request


A denial of a rezoning request for 1408 Parker Lane by the Planning Board was upheld by the Henderson City Council on Monday evening after a great deal of citizen input and a little debate.

According to Planning & Development Director Erris Dunston, the Planning Board denied the request because it did not feel that it was in “harmony” with the neighborhood. She also added that the board must consider all possible uses, not just the use intended by the applicant asking for the rezoning.

It became clear during the discussion that the intended use of the property would be as a bank branch.

Once the meeting was opened to public comment by Henderson Mayor Pete O’Geary, Karen Stainback told the council that she was present on behalf of the petitioner, who was unavailable due to prior commitments. She asked that the council delay its decision for thirty days.

Under questioning by member Garry Daeke, she later acknowledged that some, but not most of the petitioners had been absent for the hearing of the Planning Board on the matter as well.

Griffin recommended to the council that the people who had come to speak on the issue be heard during the current meeting, a sentiment echoed by member Mike Rainey.

Resident Luke Pierce provided the only public comment for the rezoning, telling the council that anyone voting against the rezoning was voting against progress.

The next seven speakers then spoke against the petition, citing concerns about a further decline in property values, increased traffic, the safety of juvenile foot and bicycle traffic to and from Parker-Peace Pool, as well as possible future uses of the property.

Resident Kay Grissom presented two pages of signatures she had gathered from residents against the rezoning.

After the public hearing was closed, member Mary Emma Evans said that she sees many people bring new business into the city, but that it seems like its the “same people”. She said that she wonders why “certain people” can start new businesses while others are denied. She said that if the Planning Board says what is to be done before [an issue] gets to the council, then the council “isn’t going to vote against it”.

Rainey said that he for economic development, but that there are a lot of places on Dabney Drive “that can serve in this capacity”.

Daeke made the motion to uphold the Planning Board’s decision to deny the rezoning, a motion that was seconded by member George Daye.

Before the vote was taken, Evans asked that the roll be called starting with Ward 4 instead of Ward 1 as is usually the case. In this instance, voting began with Daye. Daye was clearly confused by the wording of the motion, since he initially voted no to a motion he had just seconded. In the end, however, the vote was unanimous, with Evans initially refusing to vote. She indicated later that she had voted yes to the motion to deny the rezoning request.