At a regular session of the Clarksville City Council, members rejected a request to allow an early reapplication for a zone change affecting property at the intersection of Dunbar Cave Road and Ross Few Road, with the motion failing 5 yes, 7 no and 1 abstention.

The resolution, introduced by Councilman Streetman and designated Resolution 20, sought council permission for the applicant to reapply before the expiration of the one-year waiting period after a prior denial. Streetman said the applicant's agent stated the intention is to return with a planned unit development (PUD) that would place retail along the front of the site and a daycare toward the rear. “I personally think a daycare center would be exceptionally beneficial when you have Rossview School right there,” Councilman Streetman said, urging colleagues to allow the applicant to pursue a fuller plan rather than a straight C-2 zone change.

Opponents raised traffic and timing concerns. Councilwoman Shekinah said the council should “honor what the council voted on” when the earlier application failed, and that there was no need to accelerate the reapplication process. Councilman Chandler said the surrounding roadwork already imposed a significant fiscal obligation on the city and said he would not approve further development on that corridor “till we get all of that road straightened out to put something in, even if it's 1 car.” Councilman Zacharias said he supported letting a developer pay an additional fee if it meant committing to a specific plan: “If there's an organization or developer out there that is willing to Pay an additional application fee for the opportunity to commit… I'm all for letting them do that and I'm gonna support this.”

Streetman replied that the applicant’s agent (identified in the record as Mr. Racony) had conveyed a plan to pursue a PUD and that departmental review would occur if a PUD application were filed. He also noted the council would have future opportunities to accept or reject any PUD when it returned with concrete plans.

Under council rules cited during the discussion, the matter required a three-fourths majority to grant the early reapplication; with 13 seated members, that threshold was 10 affirmative votes. The roll call on the motion produced 5 yes, 7 no and 1 abstain, and the resolution failed.

Clarifying details from the meeting record show the applicant would have been seeking to reapply roughly three months before the one-year window would normally allow. No formal PUD application had been filed at the time of the vote; the agent’s stated intent was described in an emailed letter rather than a full application packet.

The council did not adopt any alternative direction or referral for staff; the denial simply left the standard one-year waiting period intact unless the applicant takes other administrative steps.

The discussion occurred under new business (Resolution 20); the vote on the measure was taken during the same session and the motion failed.