Neighbors press Commission over proposed greenhouse manufacturing on East Genesee; action deferred
Loading...
Summary
An applicant proposing a small, automated greenhouse-manufacturing plant on East Genesee Street faced sustained neighbor opposition over location, traffic and a proposed 9‑foot retaining wall; the Planning Commission heard testimony but deferred action to resolve code and permit details.
Applicant presentation and applicant response: The Planning Commission heard a status report on the Greenhouse Manufacturing Plan — a proposal tied to Resubdivision R‑25‑34 and Special Use Permit SP‑20520 for 2,956–2,964 East Genesee Street. The applicant, representing ACAT (Sustainable Energy and Agriculture Technology, LLC), described a 3,600‑square‑foot light manufacturing building that would assemble finished 10‑by‑10 greenhouse units on site. The applicant said production would be automated and low‑noise and that the product would contain no carbon fuel. “We would like to build a 3,600 square foot small manufacturing plant… and in that building, we are going to produce our 10 foot by 10 foot greenhouse made of glasses and wood,” the applicant said.
Neighbors’ concerns: Multiple neighbors raised objections during public comment, citing land‑use compatibility, traffic and long‑term permanence. Donna Stoner, a long‑term resident, said the Genesee Street strip was intended for mixed‑use retail and questioned why the applicant had not located near highways or existing commercial properties: “I believe this proposal should be denied because it… does not match the guidelines and standards of the zoning ordinance,” she said. Another neighbor, Kenel Antoine, called the project “a viable project, but… in the wrong location,” and noted that the retaining wall and truck movements would not sufficiently mitigate impacts.
Technical questions and clarifications: Commissioners pressed the applicant on retaining‑wall dimensions, grade, lighting and deliveries. The applicant said the proposed retaining wall would vary with slope and that parts of it would be mostly below grade; he gave an example height of “9 feet 10 inches” from some reference points while staff clarified the elevation drawing showed much of the structure below ground in places. Legal counsel and staff confirmed the requested special use permit would not “run with the land” under recent zoning amendments and that approved permits would be subject to periodic renewal rather than indefinitely transferring to a future owner. Counsel corrected an earlier misstatement and said the SUP will be subject to renewal.
Traffic, deliveries and operating hours: The applicant proposed weekday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and explained an initial production target of roughly one unit per day (about 300 a year), with limited on‑site inventory. Commissioners explored a recommended condition limiting deliveries during school commute times; the applicant said deliveries could be scheduled to avoid peak student movement and that logistics providers often prefer early morning or late afternoon windows.
Outcome and next steps: The commission closed public comment but did not act on the application that evening. Commission members said they need additional legal and code clarifications before a final vote; the item will return for a future meeting. Staff and counsel will provide clarifying materials on the retaining‑wall grading, SUP renewal terms and proposed conditions for deliveries and lighting.
Ending: The hearing produced detailed technical follow‑up requests and clear neighborhood opposition to the proposed location; the commission deferred action pending further staff and legal analysis.
