Planning Board Approval Overturned by Blundering Palm Coast City Council.
Council continues to feel a need to atone for the Centex resort fiasco. By doing this, they risk killing Palm Coast’s future.
February 8, 2008 –
Discount Tire Store at
When
-
Discount Tire stores are clean and attractive. All work is done inside the building. (conceptual building elevations)
-
They are amenable to restrictions (such as closed bay doors, etc.) and willing to work under fairly strict architectural requirements.
-
They provide about 10 good paying jobs per store.
-
A tire store generates less traffic than a bank.
-
They would also pay significant impact fees upon issuance of the building permit and significant property taxes going forward.
-
No tires, new or used, would be stored outside the building.
-
Many
-
The site plan has three separate landscaping barriers between
-
A tire store would benefit other commercial tenants in
-
When CBL presented their original plan for council approval, they stated that they hoped to bring to
-
How can a clean tire store be inconsistent with the lawn and garden centers at Lowe’s and Mal-Mart? And Wal-mart also sells tires.
Regardless of the overwhelming reasons for allowing Discount Tires to build, the planning staff recommended against the exception, based largely on esthetics. While esthetics is desirable, they cannot be the sole determinant in such a crucial decision. This is why the PLDRB is allowed to use discretion. They properly approved the special exception. Miffed by the PLDRB’s decision, planning director, Ray Tyner appealed.
With the exception of councilman Meeker, the council, chastened by the Centex/Palm Coast Resort episode, postured themselves in favor of the CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) and voted to overrule the PLDRB decision. I was disappointed with Mayor Netts, Councilwoman DiStefano, and Councilman Moorman. Each of them had previously expressed to me an understanding of the critical local need for commercial and industrial development. They also spoke of the need for development during the church debate (discussed below) but conveniently forgot what they said when voting against Discount Tire. I cannot explain their votes. I wonder if they can.
Councilman Peterson, however, did not disappoint. True to form, he demonstrated once again that the ability to speak articulately (he is a Harvard MBA graduate) does not always bring with it wisdom. Sometimes articulate speech comes alone. With carefully chosen words, he stated that
Councilman Meeker alone demonstrated his understanding of the issue when he asked the CBL representative if he thought that the city was "sending the wrong message" to developers." Hedging his reply because CBL will still have to face the city with the next proposal for the site, the representative admitted that a message was being sent, and that it has been difficult working with the city." CBL is one of the largest and most respected shopping mall developers in the country. Imagine what they might be saying to their peers at the next developers’ association meeting.
Grace Tabernacle Ministries
Houses of worship are allowed in IND-1 zoning districts if granted a special exception. The PLDRB properly denied the Grace Tabernacle Ministries’ application, though city planning staff had recommended conditional approval.
-
Common sense dictates that you do not put a church directly across the road from Sunbelt Chemical, an existing chemical facility located in a high intensity district. Issues of chemical spills and accidental vapor releases are not restricted to non-church hours.
-
All council members bemoaned the resulting loss of an industrial zoned parcel, recognizing the great need for local industrial and commercial development and its resulting effect on both the tax base and the economy (jobs).
-
Owners of surrounding IND-1 parcels would lose. The number of potential industrial developers for their property will be diminished along with their property’s value. What industrial developer in their right mind would choose a location next to a church as opposed to another suitable location?
New city council attorney, Bill Reishmann, raised the issue of the “the 2,000 pound gorilla.” He warned council that several recent court cases have resulted from governments taking actions that were construed as standing in the way of religion. He suggested strongly that council would be hard pressed to defend a denial of the church’s appeal if a lawsuit were initiated. No public comment was allowed. Owners of adjacent property were not heard. Council sent the issue back to the PLDRB for further review.
-
Give up sorely needed industrial zoned land near rail access and face reprisal lawsuits by adjacent property owners.
-
Deny the church’s application and risk an expensive lawsuit from that side.
And all because the church apparently could not afford land elsewhere. They apparently went ahead a bought the land at Hargrove Grade before applying for the exemption.
CALL TO ACTION: Business, government, and religious leaders need to find an affordable alternative for the church location. Grace Tabernacle Ministries should show good faith and community citizenship by delaying any further action on their behalf until alternatives can be explored. The potential loss to the community is too large to accept either of the two present choices.
ON THE MARK
Toby,
Both articles are well written. I am not familiar with the church issue, so will only comment on the Discount Tire issue. I concur with your comments about Councilman Peterson, and want to express my disappointment in him. Prior to this decision and Mr Meeker & Moorman joining the Council, I felt him to be the only shining light on the previous council, now that light has dimmed. How dare him tell me where I msut shop for tires. That is my decision and I will continue to shop at Discount even though I will have to drive and spend my tax money in Ormond Beach. My wife recently needed some work on her auto and chose Walmart since they did this type work. Wal Mart is right around the corner from the proposed site of Discount\\’s. She being relegated to wait had to spend the hour in shopping at the most dreaded
overcrowded location in PC. At
Discount she could have left the auto, gone to a local restaurant, had a relaxing meal and spent tax money in our town.
Thanks City Council Members Netts, DiStefano, Peterson and Moorman. You have shown that there are 2 sides of your mouth from which you can speak!
Church on Industrial Land
Why bother having zoning rules? I am an adjacent owner to this piece of property and if a church is allowed to go there it will de-value my property. I have a letter stating that someone wants to buy our property for $300,00 per acre – it is contingent on them buying all four lots – three properties owners agreed to sell and one property owner would not sell — it is the church that is the hold out. The church was asked at one of the council meetings whether they would sell if they had an offer and they outright lied and said they would — well they did have an offer and they refused to sell. This company is still interested in buying the property – this would bring a big major company to our community which we need. If I were the city I would deny the church from building on that parcel. Just so the city can’t get sued for denying the church, they should tell the church to find a piece in the industrial park in a safer location, just not this piece. It seems to me that the church is being selfish and not caring about other people – I really thought churches were supposed to care but this curch does not – they lied to the city council on grounds that were brought up about a day care – first they said they wouldn’t have it but then when the reverend was speaking he said we might need to use it during the day when the parents drop their children off — that means they are going to have a day care – meaning IF they get in then they would want a day care. If this church is allowed to build in there and not use the church during business hours, the church after they are in there will sue the city because they won’t let them use the church during the day so it doesn’t matter. This property is right next to a highly toxic chemical plant – the chemicals they produce cause kidney, lung, birth defects – not a place a church should be next to. It amazes me that there is even a fight about this – it is just simple – industrial means industrial – not a place for a church. The church stated there are other churches in that area – two points on that — they are renting, they do not own the properties and more importantly they are not right next to a high toxic chemical plant.
Speaking of sending the wrong message
The representative from Starbucks was quoted as saying that PC was the most difficult jurisdiction he has had the experience of dealing with. With over 15,000 locations world-wide, congratulations guys, you have risen your anti-business slant to a new level!
I’m scratching my head on this one
By simply upholding the planning board decision, the Council had a chance to: 1)\\\”Go green\\\” by saving thousands of local citizens the 50-mile round trip to the Ormond Store;
2)Promote economic development by keeping retail dollars local & by welcoming a multi-million investment by a great corporation;
3)Create 10+ quality jobs desperately needed by young men in our community &
4) Help a new, but already ailing shopping center. Lowes already laid off 35 employees and is obviously stuggling. The retail building next to Belks sits half vacant.
Other things to consider:
– Almost every shopping center in the country has auto related uses. These are already all along the Parkway; why not in this shopping center?
– We have the highest or 2nd highest unemployment rate of any county in the state. Can we afford to turn away decent paying jobs with benefits?
The Council\\’s decision and the staff\\’s actions are puzzling to say the least. I am very disappointed.
Church on Industrial Land
I attended two of the recent town meetings regarding the request of a ministries group to build a church in an industrial zone. It appeared that the correct decision was imminent at the last meeting which was to deny when the town attorney suddenly brought up the threat of a federal law that could result in a legal action against the town with serious financial consequences.
Since no one could interject at the proceedings I am using this forum to raise what I think are relevant issues that need to be considered.
1. The church purchased unsuitable land and has since refused to sell it for a profit when offered. This is not denying the right to worship it is selfishness.
2. If the town permits the church to be built then the church will certainly under this quoted federal law have the right to sue when any restrictions at all are placed on the usage of that church.
3. If the other owners of industrial property loose property value or end up with increased insurance rates due to the proximity of the church they may decide to sell the remainder of our limited industrial land to other churches. How would that be stopped?
4. Other churches operate nearby in rented but risky conditions but they are temporary. They are not a precedent for a permanent facility.
5. The church’s attorney indicated that general fears of potential danger or risk are not valid arguments for denial. How then do we justify creating industrial zones for the purpose of protecting residents in the first place.
6. If zoning laws are this easily abdicated how certain can any citizen ever be that zoning laws will protect their rights.
Planning Board
Fascinating! There were two appeals to PLDRB decisions and not one question to the Chair of that board, who, attended the meeting prepared to answer what should have been pointed questions as to the Board\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s reasoning of position. At one point a council member asked the appellant the boards position on an item, of which I was waiting for the city attorney to indicate that the question should be asked of the board or at least the chair who was present at the meeting. Also since when is a staff member an agrieved party to a speacial exception? Under the City charter code of ordinances part 2 chapter 2 article 5 division 5 section 2-299 the process in detail is given for an appeal to a planning board decision as relates to a special exception decision. This would take precedent over an antiquated non-codified county code that is used for a planning review board not as palm coast has,ie a Planning and land development REGULATION board which has been codified as the land planning AND regulation agency for the City.
Makes you wonder…….