|
154
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 56 Lamar Proctor:And so, does the stream go on the school property? I'm just trying to figure it out.
<br /> 57
<br /> 58 Brian Collie: I'm not sure if it goes onto the school property or not.
<br /> 59
<br /> 60 Charity Kirk: It's two separate things.
<br /> 61
<br /> 62 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
<br /> 63
<br /> 64 Statler Gilfillen: I believe that this issue came before this board a few months ago and a decision was made. It has only
<br /> 65 been a few months, can you clarify for me,why this is brought up before us again tonight?What is the justification of
<br /> 66 change?
<br /> 67
<br /> 68 Bob Hornik: I can give you what I, as the applicant,think it is.The application previously was for a general use district
<br /> 69 which would have allowed 110+different uses.We had no specific site plan, no specific detail about the plan.That
<br /> 70 Planning Board meeting was back in July or August of 2022 and after that meeting,we regrouped and said "here are
<br /> 71 what the concerns were, it seemed to be that it was a Dollar General store and many people were concerned that with a
<br /> 72 general use zoning, it could be almost anything.We thought that the best way that we could try to give some assurance
<br /> 73 to the County and the residents of the area about what was going to go there,would be to step back, rethink it and to do
<br /> 74 some of the engineering and to present a site-specific development plan and a conditional district rezoning. The non-
<br /> 75 residential district is the district that's available and suitable,for this kind of use. So, after some discussion with the
<br /> 76 planning staff, they felt it was a different enough application, and we do too, in quality and in kind,that it wasn't subject to
<br /> 77 the one year waiting period. No one that I know of challenged that.
<br /> 78
<br /> 79 Steve Kaufmann: I remember distinctly talk of a Dollar General going in there.And that was one of the reasons, in my
<br /> 80 opinion why the board wasn't interested. It didn't quite fit in with that community setting,with the residential and business
<br /> 81 district in general.They were all against having a Dollar General store there.The discussion was about Dollar General
<br /> 82 as I remember it.
<br /> 83
<br /> 84 Bob Hornik: I don't doubt that for a second. however, I don't think you can make a recommendation, under zoning, based
<br /> 85 on who the user is. I would think that's an abuse of the zoning power.
<br /> 86
<br /> 87 Beth Bronson:To his point, I think it had more to do with the character of the area than what the actual development
<br /> 88 was.
<br /> 89
<br /> 90 Bob Hornick: Regarding the character of the area,you've got 2 or 3 steel buildings across the street. In my view,the
<br /> 91 facade that's going to be on this Dollar General store,will be a significant improvement over what's in the area.
<br /> 92
<br /> 93 Cy Stober:What you have laid out before you is documented in emails from staff and Mr. Hornik, is the rationale for why
<br /> 94 1 supported the application proceeding and didn't halt it.The ordinance does require that we get a dissimilar application
<br /> 95 before us and what you see here,the zoning request for single use, proposed the difference in acreage, and then the
<br /> 96 site specific commitments, and then furthermore,the lack of an impact to the commercial balance for development in that
<br /> 97 activity node, are all the rationale for why I made the determination on behalf of the County that this application could
<br /> 98 proceed. So,what you have before you, is my rationale and why I made that decision.That was before we saw a site
<br /> 99 plan or anything, that was just the general nature of the request, and that it would be a single use with a site-specific
<br /> 100 plan. Regarding the use,the use before you tonight is for a retail store.That is the only use that we as planners or you
<br /> 101 as planning board can consider. There's federal matter of due process and equal protection under the law,that has to
<br /> 102 be considered.You cannot consider this with regard to the specific tenant that would occupy the building.There are
<br /> 103 certain carve outs say, adult uses,that do consider specific uses to be exceptionally different from other commercial
<br /> 104 uses or entertainment uses, but in the case of general retail store,we can't consider whether it be a locally owned and
<br /> 105 operated store, it would be a nationally owned and operated store, the franchise that would be locally owned and
<br /> 106 operated but speak to a higher corporate power,we don't take any of that into consideration.We have to consider a
<br /> 107 general retail store use, that is our responsibility, and that's the responsibility before you tonight as well.
<br /> 108
<br />
|