At tonight’s City Council meeting the hottest item on the agenda is whether to re-zone the land next to Wal mart (the so-called ‘Staples’ site).

For those of you who have been following this issue, you know that it has been a difficult decision for City Council. Many of the neighbors have been vocal in their opposition that they do not want this piece of residentially-zoned land, to be re-zoned to allow commercial development.

To review the situation briefly, several years ago City Council voted to re-zone part of this land, granting this same developer permission to build one commercial property on the land, which at the time was proposed as a future Staples site. What is before City Council now is whether to allow two more commercial establishments to be constructed on that land, adjacent to the one that has already been approved. The developer, who owns the land , has to make $700,000 worth of road improvements on West Boulevard before doing anything with the land, as mandated by the Department of Transportation, and, he says, this kind of expenditure has made it economically impractical to create just one commercial site. He had hoped that Wal mart or DOT might help pay for the required road improvements but that is apparently not going to happen. So now, he is asking that he be allowed to develop two more sites on that land because he feels that only with the revenue from three sites could he afford to make the $700,000 road improvements, which are in addition to his costs of the land (approximately $500,000 when purchased) and the cost of developing the sites. It is certainly an understandable request. Given that the land in question is on a service road of a four- lane highway, across the street from Wal mart, in an area that is clearly becoming more commercial every year, it would seem that this would be a relatively straightforward decision for a Council that is definitely pro commercial growth.

What makes the decision hard for Council, however, is the NIMBY factor (Not In My Back Yard). The adjacent property owners are concerned about the traffic, environmental and quality of life effects of such development. Many of the residents of the adjacent Scotsdale neighborhood moved there when the area was not even in the city limits and before Wal mart came. They have seen their neighborhood, over the years, become something other than what they thought it was when they built there, and they are rightly concerned. As part of their defense, they raise the issue that there are already enough buildings and commercial sites available here in Laurinburg, so why make more, especially when it might negatively impact on their neighborhood.

My feeling on the issue, for what it’s worth, is this. The city of Laurinburg and most of its residents, want to see more commercial development. More retail will benefit the city by helping it become more of a retail destination for the surrounding 80,000 people for whom Laurinburg is the closest ‘city’, rather than these same people choosing to go to a farther place to get what they want. Laurinburg will benefit by becoming more of a competitive place to live by having more retail options. In short, I feel more retail is important for the growth and financial well being of the City. In this particular situation, we have a developer who already owns the land and wants to bring businesses here. The land is clearly only fit for commercial development. Also, the developer has agreed to provide a level of landscaping and property buffers that exceeds what is required for general business properties, so it will be attractive growth, relatively speaking, These agreed upon site plans cannot be changed in the future without coming before City Council again. Also, the road improvements required by DOT appear to address the traffic concerns. Not allowing the developer to develop this land, I don’t think, is going to help fill other vacant properties. Rather the opposite is more likely, that by helping Laurinburg become more of a retail destination, letting the developer proceed increases the chance of other properties becoming occupied. I do think that City Council should try, as much as possible, to make sure that we not only get the commercial development the City needs but, in situations like this where they have the power to put conditions on the development, ensure that the commercial development is as considerate of adjacent property owners as possible. Therefore, since Council does have the right to put conditions on the rezoning, I would like to see additional conditions added to the landscaping ones already in place, such as no adult entertainment or gaming parlors be allowed there and that the establishments close by a reasonable hour, such as 2 a.m.. We will see how things go tonight.