<!–
FAIRMONT– The Fairmont City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday to discuss two items it pulled from last week’s regularly scheduled city council agenda. The items both dealt with Martin County’s request to rezone property for the purpose of constructing a new public safety center.
The first item the council was tasked with was a resolution to deny the rezone request at 800 E. Margaret Street. The council expressed its intent to deny the request at its Oct. 23 meeting.
On Tuesday Peter Bode, the city’s Planner and Zoning Official, said that following that meeting staff was directed to draft a resolution for the denial of the rezone request. He read the findings in the resolution, which included that no error or oversight was made in the current zoning designations for the property prior to the application for rezoning and that the proposed rezoning of the property would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the city as adopted in its 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
The southern approximately one-third of the property is guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Guidance Map to be used for Mixed Use Employment Center (“MUE”) purposes. MUE guides for light and advanced manufacturing as a desired primary use. B3 General Business, as proposed by the applicant, does not allow for light or advanced manufacturing as MUE guides and the southern approximately one-third of the property is guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Guidance Map to be used for Mixed Use Employment Center (“MUE”) purposes. MUE guides for multiple family housing as a desired primary use. R3 Multiple Family, as the southern approximately one-third of the property is now zoned, already allows multiple family housing without the need to rezone.
Bode further read that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interest of the physical development of the city for several reasons.
Council Member Jay Maynard pointed out that the Planning Commission had looked at the same question and unanimously recommended approval back on Oct. 3.
“If we’re going to deny the Planning Commission, why do we even bother having one?” Maynard said.
He shared that he wasn’t asking that question for himself but had been asked by one of the members of the Planning Commission, who expressed disappointment in the council and its decision.
Maynard also said that Margaret Street is industrial and commercial in use past the parcel in question and that the surrounding area isn’t entirely residential.
“We ignored our own Comprehensive Plan and built on a parcel zoned R3 when we built the new Public Works building and there’s plenty of reason to grant the request for rezoning and I think that’s what we should be doing,” Maynard said.
Council Member Britney Kawecki said she would like to stick with the motions originally made, based on the inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and future Land Use Map.
Council member Michele Miller said she approves of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and believes it is a good guide, but does not bind the council to zone any area in town. She seconded Kawecki’s motion.
The motion passed 4-1 with Maynard opposed.
Next, the council discussed a proposed emergency ordinance establishing study period and moratorium on the land in question.
Bode also went through the findings used for the ordinance, which include, in part, that the current regulations and official controls of the city may not adequately address the impacts and effects of existing, expanded or new development within the property area identified and that the city needs to research, analyze and study the impacts of such uses in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan or to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of current regulations in protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
The moratorium would prevent anything from being done to the land for potentially up to a year.
Maynard said that in council discussions with the city attorney, one of the things they have been told is that adopting a moratorium like this to stop one project is not proper or permissible.
After Maynard made that comment, Chris Hood of Flaherty and Hood, the city’s attorney, said that what Maynard shared was privileged communication and could not be discussed in an open meeting unless the council as a majority wanted to wave the privilege and have the conversation in an open meeting.
Maynard withdrew his comment, but reiterated that the moratorium was suggested to stop one project.
“I think this is a really bad idea and likely to get us sued,” said Maynard.
Kawecki made a motion to study the larger area and adopt a moratorium to halt all development, based on findings, until said study is completed.
In a roll call vote, the motion passed 4-1 with Maynard the sole dissenting vote.