Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board recommends council deny special-use permit for freight-hauling operation at 966 North Pollock Street
Summary
The Town of Summer Planning Board recommended that town council not approve a special-use permit for outdoor and indoor storage to support a freight-hauling business at 966 North Pollock Street, citing inconsistency with the town's Unified Development Ordinance and 2040 comprehensive plan.
Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Summer Planning Board on March 20 recommended that the town council not approve a special-use permit allowing storage and freight-hauling operations at 966 North Pollock Street.
Planning staff presented the application and told the board the 2.67-acre property fronts Pollock Street and is in a mixed zone with a GB (general business) street-facing classification. Staff said the proposal for storage both inside and outside enclosed structures and on-site parking of trucks and trailers is not consistent with the Town of Selma Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the 2040 comprehensive plan.
"Goal 3 of the 2040 comp plan speaks to coordinated and attractive development of gateway areas of the town," planning staff told the board, arguing the freight storage use does not match the desired uses and appearance at the Pollock Street entry.
The applicant, who identified himself in the transcript as Joshua So to, told the board he expects to store approximately five to seven vehicles and several 7-by-14 dump trailers on the site and that he would install a 6-foot chain-link fence with mesh and landscaping "whatever is needed" to meet ordinance requirements. He clarified the operation would not involve large Class A dump trucks but smaller trucks and trailers.
Board members asked staff and the applicant questions about consistency with the land-use plan and the proposed landscaping and screening. A board member noted that, for special-use permits, the board must make a recommendation to council and that staff's findings should guide the recommendation.
After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to recommend that the town council NOT approve the special-use permit based on staff findings of inconsistency with the UDO and comprehensive plan; the motion passed by voice vote. A staff member recorded for the minutes that an initial motion had failed for lack of a second and that the final motion to not recommend passed with a second.
The Planning Board's recommendation is advisory; the town council may reach a different decision when it takes up the permit application.
Next procedural steps: the transcript indicates the application and the Planning Board recommendation will be part of the record forwarded to town council for its review and decision at a subsequent public meeting.

