Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Express Mart rebuild as developer seeks rezoning for 3910 Dun Street
Summary
Pricon, Inc., d/b/a Express Mart told a joint Groves City Council and Planning & Zoning hearing it wants to demolish and rebuild the 1993 convenience store at 3910 Dun Street; nearby residents urged denial, citing drainage, noise, lighting, traffic and property-value concerns. Planning & Zoning will recommend and council will take final action later.
A developer asked Groves officials on Jan. 12 to convert 3910 Dun Street from R1 (single-family) to C1 (retail) and to demolish and rebuild the existing Express Mart, but neighbors urged the planning commission and council to reject the rezoning.
“My name is Iman Sarcus,” the applicant told the joint public hearing, identifying himself as a representative of Pricon, Inc., doing business as Express Mart. He said the 1993 facility is “outdated,” does not meet current environmental standards and needs “meaningful reinvestments” to remain viable. The planned rebuild would replace tanks, install state-of-the-art fuel dispensers (including diesel on every nozzle), expand the store and restrooms and incorporate a new canopy; the applicant estimated about nine months for demolition and reconstruction.
Neighbors at the hearing described recurring flooding on Dun Street and raised multiple concerns they said would be exacerbated by a larger, 24-hour convenience store. Kirk May, who said he has lived in Groves for 70 years and at 3848 Dun Street for 56 years, told council he worries about property values, louder noise (including more frequent dumpster collections), additional lighting, increased traffic and crime. Christy Fugate said she reviewed what she described as 911-call records and reported 128 calls over five years; she asked the commission to deny the rezoning. Other residents said early-morning deliveries, driveway and driveway-alignment changes, and existing drainage problems were unresolved by the current proposal.
The applicant and his engineer said they had revised the site layout to reduce the number of driveways, move dumpsters closer to the current pad, and locate employee parking at the rear; they said HVAC equipment would be walled and that a masonry privacy fence is shown on the site plan. Staff and the applicant said they had met with Jefferson County Drainage District No. 7 (DD7) and that detention requirements would depend on DD7’s review; the applicant said he expects a net reduction in impervious area through driveway consolidation and other adjustments.
Planning commissioners and council members questioned where deliveries would be unloaded, whether the station would remain open during construction (the applicant said the plan is to demolish and rebuild, replacing tanks and equipment), and how long construction would take. Daniel, introduced by the applicant as the project’s civil engineer, answered technical layout and access questions. Several residents asked what enforceable mitigation the city could require and how neighbors could hold the operator accountable.
No final action was taken. Staff said the Planning & Zoning Commission will meet independently and submit a recommendation to the City Council; final determination will occur at a future council meeting. Residents were told they may submit written comments for the record.
What happens next: Planning & Zoning will consider the record and provide its recommendation to council. If the council later schedules final action, the item could include more detailed engineering and drainage data, permit conditions and any required mitigation measures.
