Foreman’s debate

Yes, I read our news site every morning. And the story of Kitty Hawk’s denial of a zoning amendment to accommodate a proposed farm and flea market at the abandoned Foreman’s lumber site caught my attention.

Let me stipulate a few things before I get to the meat of my beef. Unless one is a libertarian purist, most citizens accept the fact that local government has some responsibility to set zoning rules and land use plans.

In the case of the “flea market” there was an added dimension — the proposed market was not a permitted use for the commercial zoning assigned to the parcel. Thus, including open air markets in the form of a text amendment to the town zoning rules was required. So far, so good.

However, the discussion seemed to stray at times from the mere mechanics of the text amendment. Comments from council members included concerns about itinerant flea market merchants who ride a “circuit” pulling trailers.

Maybe he was just thinking out loud, but one of Councilman Richard Reid’s concerns, among other things, was that land zoned for commercial growth was limited and that the town needed quality, high income business.

Here is an example where a generally accepted function of government — zoning oversight — crosses the line into something different. It is one thing to debate a major exception to the town plan that requires a text amendment. It is a different matter when elected officials begin to base part of their decisions on almost dictating to the owner the type of business that should occupy a property.

If one takes it to the extreme, suppose the Planning Department had been presented with a plan for the parcel that was a permitted use — say a “mom and pop” restaurant or small store. So is the idea that, given the dwindling available commercial space, the property owner should hold out for a high-end jewelry store or a three-story office building so that the town can get more property-tax valuation bang for their buck? It sounds like it.

Turning down the flea market exception based on the fact it isn’t a permitted use is one thing; turning it down because elected officials want to see a more valuable building on the property is, quite frankly, out of line.

And what of the current owner of the land? The parcel is earning zero revenue for the owner, yet he is paying property tax, maintenance upkeep and likely liability and other insurance. Here he has an opportunity to earn some revenue with the parcel and he is expected to delay those earnings until we find a higher quality business.

Granted, council members said the project was not consistent with the land use plan. They also had questions about the site plan and whether it could keep the project from evolving into something other than what the developers envisioned. Mayor Pro Tem Gary Perry said it looked like the idea was to change the code to accommodate a single plan, in effect to allow a monopoly.

But quality, high income business? We seem to worry too much about becoming Myrtle Beach. Sometimes I worry that some of our leaders want us to become too much like Hilton Head.

GO TO HOME PAGE »