I wanted to take a minute to clarify the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation regarding the denial of a request for a piece of land (currently in the middle of two commercially zoned and developed properties) to M-2 zoning. A quick background for those that aren’t fully aware of what is allowed in a M-2 zone, some land use examples include: all M-1 designated land uses as well as bottling works, bus barns, chemical laboratories, cold storage plants, freight terminals, moving/transfer/storage plants, railroad yards, as well as more intense uses under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
While the recommendation was that allowing this intermingling of uses between C-2 and M-2 would be acceptable, the Planning Commission, during discussion, unanimously agreed that the proposed potential use by the applicant of a “freight terminal/storage yard” would be too intense of a use to be placed directly in between two zoned C-2 parcels. In addition, this request was deemed (during an hour long discussion) spot zoning which is a poor planning practice.
Part of the process for a zoning request that is legally required is notification and conduction of a public hearing. This occurs for a reason. Obviously, the re-zoning petitioner is not going to have any issues with their request for re-zoning. However, other property owners within the area (some which may already be invested business owners or home owners), may have concerns or issues and this process provides them the right to voice their concerns or support as changes could positively or negatively impact the value of their investment.
The Planning Commission did hear from land and business owners in opposition of this re-zoning. The same night the Planning Commission also heard from residents and property owners in opposition of the CVS re-zoning request. The outcome was not the same. Two request, two public hearings, two different outcomes. Both requests considered, discussed, and debated by the Planning Commission to come to their recommendations.
Thank you for your time,
Letter to the editor