Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission deadlocks on rezoning for Garrett's Golf Carts site; no recommendation forwarded
Summary
A proposed rezoning of 604 Northwoods Drive from C-2 to S-1 to allow a storage business drew concern from staff over conflicts with the comprehensive plan and subdivision limitations; the commission recorded a 3–3 split and took no action.
The Fountain Inn Planning Commission on July 16 took no action on a rezoning request for 604 Northwoods Drive after a 3–3 split. The applicant/operator said the plan would reuse part of the existing multi-tenant building and convert other space to storage; staff expressed concern the S-1 service/industrial designation would conflict with the city’s commercial mixed-use future land use.
Staff told the commission the site—about 12 acres and partly occupied by Garrett’s Golf Carts—has a future land use of commercial mixed use and that rezoning to S-1 could open the property to more industrial or intense uses in the future. Staff also noted a potential procedural problem if the applicant later sought to subdivide units that would create nonconforming plat conditions or conflict with required setbacks.
The property operator, identified in the record as Mr. Garrett, said he has operated Garrett’s Golf Carts for more than 30 years and that local partners Todd Hardaway and Will Glenn plan a storage business akin to a public-storage model. "We want to get it resolved so we can start a storage business similar to public storage," Garrett said, and said the owners would invest in and beautify the property.
Commissioners questioned whether the building would be torn down or reused (Garrett said they would reuse half the building) and asked how rezoning had been handled on nearby properties. Staff clarified that the planning commission cannot approve subdivisions that would create nonconforming plats and indicated that any variance or subdivision issue would be handled by the board of zoning appeals.
A motion that the planning commission not recommend approval of PZ2026-02 was made and seconded; the chair recorded the result as a 3–3 tie and declared "no action," meaning the commission did not forward a recommendation to city council on the rezoning request.
Because no recommendation was forwarded, the applicant may pursue other review avenues (such as a variance or appeal to the board of zoning appeals) or may return with modified proposals; staff recommended the city would prefer a C-2 designation consistent with the comprehensive plan.
