4.5.23 PB Packet - Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 166 Brian Collie: That is correct, that green area that sprawls over across onto this property is for the White Cross School. 167 168 Lamar Proctor: It's for the school then it goes off in a line and that follows a stream... 169 170 Brian Collie: Yes, stream buffers 171 172 Lamar Proctor:And so, does the stream go on the school property? I'm just trying to figure it out. 173 174 Brian Collie: I'm not sure if it goes onto the school property or not. 175 176 Charity Kirk: It's two separate things. 177 178 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 179 180 Statler Gilfillen: I believe that this issue came before this board a few months ago and a decision was made. It has only 181 been a few months, can you clarify for me,why this is brought up before us again tonight?What is the justification of 182 change? 183 184 Bob Hornik: I can give you what I, as the applicant, think it is.The application previously was for a general use district 185 which would have allowed 110+different uses.We had no specific site plan, no specific detail about the plan.That 186 Planning Board meeting was back in July or August of 2022 and after that meeting,we regrouped and said "here are 187 what the concerns were, it seemed to be that it was a Dollar General store and many people were concerned that with a 188 general use zoning, it could be almost anything.We thought that the best way that we could try to give some assurance 189 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 190 some of the engineering and to present a site-specific development plan and a conditional district rezoning.The non- 191 residential district is the district that's available and suitable,for this kind of use. So, after some discussion with the 192 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 193 the one year waiting period. No one that I know of challenged that. 194 195 Steve Kaufmann: I remember distinctly talk of a Dollar General going in there.And that was one of the reasons, in my 196 opinion why the board wasn't interested. It didn't quite fit in with that community setting,with the residential and business 197 district in general. They were all against having a Dollar General store there.The discussion was about Dollar General 198 as I remember it. 199 200 Bob Hornik: I don't doubt that for a second. however, I don't think you can make a recommendation, under zoning, based 201 on who the user is. I would think that's an abuse of the zoning power. 202 203 Beth Bronson:To his point, I think it had more to do with the character of the area than what the actual development 204 was. 205 206 Bob Hornick: Regarding the character of the area, you've got 2 or 3 steel buildings across the street. In my view,the 207 facade that's going to be on this Dollar General store,will be a significant improvement over what's in the area. 208 209 Cy Stober:What you have laid out before you is documented in emails from staff and Mr. Hornik, is the rationale for why 210 1 supported the application proceeding and didn't halt it. The ordinance does require that we get a dissimilar application 211 before us and what you see here, the zoning request for single use, proposed the difference in acreage, and then the 212 site specific commitments, and then furthermore,the lack of an impact to the commercial balance for development in that 213 activity node, are all the rationale for why I made the determination on behalf of the County that this application could 214 proceed. So, what you have before you, is my rationale and why I made that decision.That was before we saw a site 215 plan or anything,that was just the general nature of the request, and that it would be a single use with a site-specific 216 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 217 as planning board can consider.There's federal matter of due process and equal protection under the law,that has to 218 be considered.You cannot consider this with regard to the specific tenant that would occupy the building.There are 219 certain carve outs say, adult uses,that do consider specific uses to be exceptionally different from other commercial 220 uses or entertainment uses, but in the case of general retail store,we can't consider whether it be a locally owned and