5_1_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6.5.24 948 949 Lamar Proctor: I'm actually... I see the issue. This discussion has helped me clarify the issue. This is a use 950 that is, once again, it sells mood altering substances in a lot of ways, it's an attractive use, especially to young 951 people, the way it's marketed, the products it sells. I know from personal experience working in law enforcement 952 that these places tend to not bring in the best elements, so I do think that they are far more akin to 953 sexually-oriented business than they are to just like a standard commercial establishment. I think I would be fine 954 either way with it being 12, 13 as a subject use standards orjust as Conditional Zoning. I guess part of what we've 955 discussed is the people who really want these businesses would have to go through a lot of steps for Conditional 956 Zoning that they wouldn't have to go through if it was 12, 13, subject to use standards. 957 958 Cy Stober: That's correct. The Zoning Compliance Permit and staff review does determine if it's 959 compliant with these standards. 960 961 Lamar Proctor: And these places already exist primarily in strip malls in municipal areas and if we made a 962 more restrictive, Conditional Zoning only, then that would essentially limit it's spread, and then it would be up to 963 municipalities on how to deal with them. There's kind of a background issue of the legalization of marijuana, but 964 that's a different issue, but I could see these establishments, if it became a permitted legal retail sale of 965 marijuana allowed in North Carolina, which I don't think is going to happen immediately, but I could see these 966 places converting into that, but that's further down the road. 967 968 Marilyn Carter: So, I'll just weigh in, because I did not understand that and that is why I wanted to make sure 969 1 heard it articulated at length.That Charity's recommendation,which I understand the intention, I think it's a good 970 one, but it would also weaken the requirement that's been presented to us, so because it will weaken the 971 requirement, I personally will vote against moving in that direction now that I understand it it. 972 973 Lamar Proctor: As in 12, 13, right? 974 975 Marilyn Carter: And vote for the original proposal. 976 977 Chris Johnston: Is there another proposal where it's not in any district? Is the Conditional District a waste of 978 time? 979 980 Beth Bronson: Like it's got to be reserved to a municipality. 981 982 Chris Johnston: And I guess, Cy, like in terms of legality, if a tobacco or vape shop challenged this or 983 something' along those lines, if it was in no district, is that putting us in a precarious position? 984 985 Cy Stober: I don't know. I'd have to ask the Attorney's Office. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know. 986 987 Beth Bronson: So what you're doing here is you would be defining tobacco and hemp retail, and you're 988 saying "nowhere." 989 990 Cy Stober: What I can tell you is that this was originally drafted by the Attorney's Office and it did permit 991 the use with the use standard, so this was an unusual amendment, it was not drafted by Planning staff, it was 992 drafted by the Attorney's Office, and then given to us for review and discussion and we discussed it, made a 993 couple modifications, but this is almost exactly what was given to us by the Attorney's Office. 994 995 Chris Johnston: And theirs was a Conditional? 996 997 Cy Stober: I think it was 11, 12, and 13.