| Moderated by: EditorPS | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GRITS Member
|
BB touched on an important issue regarding the the Old Food Lion, and Hairbrush added to some comments regarding the "eye sore". I know this is probably a building that will remain empty and will never be "bombed" because the owner "Agapion" appears to be untouchable. I would just like anyone who has anything to say about Food Lion and this dilapidated building to post it here. What can we do as a community to clean it up or get rid of it? It will be a definite struggle with this man and his daughter because they will pull every law protecting his rights to do absolutely nothing. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Grits I agree. I think we should start looking at ways to either force them to improve this building or have it torn down. I think I will start doing some research and I would also love for anyone that has information to post it here, so that maybe eventually we can do something about it. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member 
|
I am sure Jim Flynt can elaborate on the benefits of big government vs small government based on this one example. I'll take $.05 for every time eminent domain is mentioned. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
bama80 wrote: I am sure Jim Flynt can elaborate on the benefits of big government vs small government based on this one example. Bama, wait just one minute. Which side do you think I am on? Big government or small government? I actually deplore the use of government confiscation of property except in the most dire circumstances. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I was not saying you favored eminent domain or any type of government. Sorry for the wording on the post. I jsut knew that you knew alot about government in general and this case in relation to eminent domain and the use of private property is a perfect example for big gov vs small gov. In my opinion, small government would let the property owner decide what to do with his property whereas big government would step in and tell the property owner what to do with it or jsut take it from him (eminent domain) for the good of the community. my apologies Jim for the misleading post. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
I hope Stokesdale residents realize that if they don't speak up, they can't change anything. If you don't like the way something is going to look, you need to let your council members know. You can give them a call or send them an e-mail, or you can call town hall and ask Carolyn Joyner to pass your message on to the council members. While the scenic corridor ordinance will help this building look better than it would have otherwise, you should ask the town council to make some changes to the development ordinance if you're not happy. Generally speaking, ordinance changes don't happen overnight. Before the "horse gets out of the barn" (as somebody just put it), you should push for stricter building standards if that's what you want. I love the way Summerfield Village on Highway 220 looks, but I know the only reason it looks that way is because the ordinance said it had to. This is great advice from S. Smith posted. Can this ordinance apply to the Old Food Lion and have Agapion change it's appearance? Or does it depend on when the ordinance was placed (probably after this Food Lion was built), and is this considered to be "grandfathered"? Last edited on Jun 5th, 2007 07:00 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member 
|
Its grandfather... |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
"The standard I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV applies!" Whether this can be applied in this situation I do not know. A long and draw out process that "may" be possible as it applies to grandfathered items is the legal process of amortization. This permits a town to cause items that would not be allowed under current ordinances to be amortized or phased out. The owner of the property is given some period of time to bring the property into compliance. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
rasin wrote: A long and draw out process that "may" be possible as it applies to grandfathered items is the legal process of amortization. This permits a town to cause items that would not be allowed under current ordinances to be amortized or phased out. The owner of the property is given some period of time to bring the property into compliance. Amortization only has to do with the removal of uses (which were either earlier allowed or which have been grandfathered), but do not have anything to do with the removal of a building itself. This planning technique is generally reserved for use when a community wishes to rid an area or the community of such offensive uses as adult bookstores, topless bars and adult entertainment. There is no law against owning a building which is or has been vacant, and with the current vacancy, there are no violations of allowable uses relative to the zoning ordinance. I am not aware of any community having planning or zoning laws which would amortize a building or property simply because it is empty. I really don't think there is much a local government can do in a situation such as this other than either buy the property for their own use or use gentle persuasion in trying to persude an owner to upgrade their property. We need to remember that this building was built originally to the building codes enacted and in force at that time, and the only times where code upgrades are imposed on an existing building is when the building is either destroyed by fire or some other peril or when a building is put to a new use not allowed under an existing zoning. To try impose some extraordinary method by local government in forcing some aesthetic revitalization or renovation of this specific building would no doubt trigger a legal action and would require the local government to impose the same such conditions on all other similarly constructed and/or designed buildings. It would open a veritable can of worms that cannot begin to even be imagined, with I think, some pretty horrendous consequences. Perhaps the Town of Summerfield should consider buying the Food Lion building and renovating it as a Town Hall? It has an excellent location and plenty of built-in parking. Last edited on Jun 6th, 2007 01:19 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: I think we should start looking at ways to either force them to improve this building or have it torn down. I am not aware of any legal mechanism which would allow or force either of the two 'solutions' which you mentioned: forcing an improvement or forcing demolition given the circumstances of the building and ownership as I understand it. A demolition might be possible under laws if it could be shown that a building was in a state of imminent collapse which might imperil an existing adjacent property or adjacent human lives. But that does not appear to be the case here. And even under that scenario, the forced demolition would still likely amount to a 'taking' by government which would alllow an owner to recover the fair market value of such property. Government can't just simply take a man's property without paying a just and fair market compensation to the owner. Thank goodness for that. Nor can a zoning or planning ordinance be legally written or enforced which holds one specific property or owner to any higher standard than all other members of the same 'class' of properties or owners within the same community. And I say, Thank goodness for that too. Last edited on Jun 6th, 2007 01:30 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
The Summerfield Fire dept. could use it for training. Would this be a better place for a training facility than where they are planning one? PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE RC AIRPLANE AIRFIELD. |
|||||||||||
|
jwg Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: rasin wrote:A long and draw out process that "may" be possible as it applies to grandfathered items is the legal process of amortization. This permits a town to cause items that would not be allowed under current ordinances to be amortized or phased out. The owner of the property is given some period of time to bring the property into compliance. If the building was originally zoned for a grocery store and it has now been converted into a storage facility (by virtue of sitting empty for x months and being used soley buy the owner), hasn't it's use changed? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
jwg wrote: If the building was originally zoned for a grocery store and it has now been converted into a storage facility (by virtue of sitting empty for x months and being used solely buy the owner), hasn't it's use changed? A vacant and empty commercial building is not really 'in use'. It would be hard to argue that it is now a storage facility when the building appears to be empty. My earlier statement (which you seem to have taken out of context) was: We need to remember that this building was built originally to the building codes enacted and in force at that time, and the only times where code upgrades are imposed on an existing building is when the building is either destroyed by fire or some other peril or when a building is put to a new use not allowed under an existing zoning. Obviously, if a new use not allowed under an existing zoning is to occur, a new rezoning request would have to be made to rezone the building and property to a new zoning district which would allow such a use. At that time, it may be the prerogative of local government to require building code upgrades such as sprinkler systems or compliance with the ADA regulations (Americans with Disabilities Act). (As a note: building code upgrades generally have nothing to do with aesthetic enhancement or improvements). My guess (without knowing) is that the present zoning district in which this building is located would allow for a rather large and broad category of commercial uses, which this building can be used for without requiring a rezoning hearing or process. More limited commercial uses within the present district would be the case IF the original zoning request was made as a conditional use request which limited the broader uses allowed within the zone specifically to ONLY a grocery use. Which, would be rare zoning occurrence. Last edited on Jun 10th, 2007 12:14 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
jwg Member
|
So is a persistently vacant commercial building still a commercial building i.e. does it have any use if it's not being used at all? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
jwg wrote: So is a persistently vacant commercial building still a commercial building i.e. does it have any use if it's not being used at all? I'm not sure I understand what it is you are really asking. The present building was built for commercial uses allowable under a commercial zoning district, and while the building may be presently vacant, and remain so for an extended period of time, it still retains the potential to be leased to other users for other uses allowable under the current zoning district. Vacancy doesn't change it's potential for use or allowable uses under the current zoning district. There are occasions where a tenant, operating under a long term lease, will vacate one retail shopping center and relocate to another, while continuing to (have) to pay both the monthly lease for both locations. A relocation may mean increased sales for such a commercial user, and beyond the requirement to comply with the prior lease to fulfill all rental payments prior to the lease cancellation or expiration, the tenant may wish to continue to pay rents for such space simply to keep other competitors from entering a market and providing competition. As an extreme example, a Dollar General store could sign a lease to rent space in the new shopping center to be built in Stokesdale, and then for whatever (business or other) reason decide not to actually take possession of the rented space, and do so legally as long as Dollar General continued to pay the agreed upon monthly rental payments for the duration of the agreed upon rental period of the lease. As I stated somewhere in this thread, a local government simply cannot take a person's property without due compensation, which is usually measured as Fair Market Value. Therefore, it is not only important, but essential, to keep that legal premise in mind in seeking solutions to properties and buildings in need of renewal, restoration or rehabilitation. Last edited on Jun 10th, 2007 02:55 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
jwg Member
|
Jim, I don't disagree with your points especially on the takings aspect. However, there are cases of limits being set on how long something can be 'diverted' from it's original use before it's recharacterized. The IRS gives you 3 out 5 years to show a profit or your 'business' reverts to a hobby. Aren't there are some requirements for a 'farm' to actually produce a marketable crop to be considered a farm? My point is that there may be a case to be made that where a commercial building is not involved in commerce (i.e. persistently unleased), it ceases to be a commercial building. A retail establishment that does not conduct retail trade may cease to be considered 'retail'. I was just looking to approach the issue from a different angle. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
jwg wrote: My point is that there may be a case to be made that where a commercial building is not involved in commerce (i.e. persistently unleased), it ceases to be a commercial building. A retail establishment that does not conduct retail trade may cease to be considered 'retail'. jwg, even if we assume that you are/were correct that a vacant building (whether commercial or retail) which remained vacant would revert to some other named category, the fact would remain, that the underlying ground or land, would still retain the zoning classification under which it is presently zoned. If a retail or commercial building burned completely down or in the extreme, if no building were built on a parcel which was zoned for a retail or commercial district, the underlying ground is still zoned to a retail or commercial zoning district present or absent an existing building, a vacant building or no building. The IRS rules which you mention, refer to a business enterprise or operation and have no connection to zoning districts or classifications. Rules for farm income can be applied in a determination of whether or not the local property tax office allows an agricultural exemption for lower property taxes for operating (as opposed to 'hobby') farms. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
If I understand the issue here, it's not about the zoning, eminent domain or even about the building being used or not (although I think people would love to see an attractive, vibrant use for this property). Based on wht I'm hearing it is more about the unsightliness of this location. (You guys correct me if I'm misunderstanding the issue.) Although the old Food Lion side of the building is vacant, Dollar General does occupy the rest of the building. I think things like building soffit falling onto the sidewalk or pieces of it hanging down as if they could fall down on someone are a concern. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
S. Smith wrote:If I understand the issue here, it's not about the zoning, eminent domain or even about the building being used or not (although I think people would love to see an attractive, vibrant use for this property). Based on wht I'm hearing it is more about the unsightliness of this location. (You guys correct me if I'm misunderstanding the issue.) Aren't these kinds of things addressed in building codes?!!??  |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
macca wrote:Aren't these kinds of things addressed in building codes?!!?? Good question! |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Harris Teeter |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
I serendipitously ran into someone a couple of weeks ago who is and has been exploring the possibility of leasing the old Food Lion building to reopen it as a private beach music and shag club. I don't know much more than his expressed interest and that he is pursuing a possible lease and whether the present zoning would allow such a use. Can you just imagine the Embers live belting out I Love Beach Music. Maybe they could add an outside deck or beer garden out back? Just think.....you might not have to roll the streets up so early! Last edited on Jun 27th, 2007 03:24 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member 
|
I have looked into opening it up as a sports based center for kids of all ages with no luck. |
|||||||||||
|
smileyfaces Member
|
It sure would be nice to have a place to relax with good music without having to go far from home. Does anyone know about the little place that opened up on 150? It has a sign about beer but haven't had a chance to check it out. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Are you talking about the one at the intersection of Harrell Road and 150, near BigBoyzToys, or whatever it's called? |
|||||||||||
|
smileyfaces Member
|
Yes! I saw a couple of motorcycles parked one afternoon but still couldn't tell what's going on. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
macca wrote: Are you talking about the one at the intersection of Harrell Road and 150, near BigBoyzToys, or whatever it's called? I have been told that this not a watering hole for the locals even though the beer advertisements are very deceiving. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
What is it???? |
|||||||||||
