SNOW HILL — A pair of proposed text amendments received favorable recommendations from the Worcester County Planning Commission this week, one dealing with neighborhood service and retail in C-1 districts, the other with health clubs and recreation in I-1 districts.
Even though both received favorable nods, county staff voiced concerns that if the amendments become regulations they could “begin to erode what was the nature” of the two districts.
The first proposed text amendment would change the rules for C-1 commercial districts to allow neighborhood retail or services greater flexibility in how square footage per building is used. Under today’s code, a neighborhood business in a C-1 district can be housed in a building up to 20,000 square feet. The space can be shared by other separate businesses, each of which is allowed a quarter of the space.
“The way the code is presently written it would put the burden on the zoning inspectors and the zoning staff to come in, look at how this building is configured, determine exactly how many square feet each unit is occupying to make sure that no unit is occupies more than 5,000 square feet,” said attorney Mark Cropper, who logged the text amendment on behalf of his client.
Cropper’s amendment wouldn’t change any of the dimensions of that 20,000-square-foot building limit but also wouldn’t require all four of the businesses to be separately owned. This would create much more flexibility of how the space is used. The example Cropper gave was of a doctor’s association where four doctors wish to set up an office in a building in a C-1 district but can’t do so as each of the businesses wouldn’t technically be a separate entity. The text amendment would allow for the cooperative use of the space but not affect anything else.
“I don’t see any practical complications or difference between what the existing code says and what the text amendment that we’re seeking would allow,” Cropper told the commission.
In the case of a medical office making joint use of the space, Commissioner Gerard Barbierri didn’t find too many issues, but worried that the commission would be opening a can of worms that someone else might take advantage of.
“And my concern, again, is are we going down the path of allowing something here that in the future is going to be something that was not intended to be a neighborhood development?” he asked.
That was the issue that county staff had with the proposal as well, according to Ed Tudor, director of Development Review and Permitting.
“This amendment in and of itself is probably not terrible but it begins to erode what was the nature of the C-1 district,” he said.
But in the case of this amendment, Commission President Marlene Ott noted that the intended use for Cropper’s client is for a medical office and was comfortable enough with the change to support it. The vote went 3 to 2 for a favorable recommendation for the amendment, with Barbierri and Commissioner Betty Smith opposed.
A second text amendment, also presented by Cropper, called for an alteration to county I-1 industrial districts to allow for the installation of a recreational use. In this particular case, Cropper told the commission that his client owns an industrial building and would like to install a racquetball court for personal use. This shouldn’t really impact how I-1 is treated in the county, Cropper continued, because the building is still being used industrially.
“You’re maintaining the integrity of the I-1 zone because the building in which this would be allowed is being used for industrial purpose and nobody can get a permit to build this type of use in an industrial zone otherwise,” he said.
As with the prior text amendment, county staff didn’t have an overly large concern with what Cropper’s client is asking, only that the change could weaken the definition of I-1.
“Our [comments] were just be careful again, that it’s a slight erosion again, just like the previous text amendment, of use,” said Tudor.
Tudor’s deputy director Phyllis Wimbrow agreed that it could be setting a less than ideal precedent. However, Cropper reiterated that the principle use of the building would not be allowed to change. Therefore, no one could buy a building in an industrial area and decide to turn it into a health and fitness club as opposed to any kind of industrial use.
County building inspectors, Cropper added, should easily be able to enforce that rule.
“They would have to decide is the principle use industrial or not,” he said.
Commissioner Wayne Hartman made a motion to approve the text amendment with the recommendation that if it should be accepted by the county at least 51-percent of the building must be devoted to industrial use. The commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Both text amendments will now move forward for review by the Worcester County Commission.