Planning board splits 4-3 on dollar stores

City Council members and planning board members raised concerns about the stores crowding out other grocery options.


City Councilman Jack Howell voted for the moratorium when it came before the City Council in January, but later said he thought the council may have been getting ahead of itself. Photo by Jonathan Simmons
City Councilman Jack Howell voted for the moratorium when it came before the City Council in January, but later said he thought the council may have been getting ahead of itself. Photo by Jonathan Simmons
  • Palm Coast Observer
  • News
  • Share

Palm Coast’s Planning and Land Development Regulation Board was divided Feb. 19 when it approved the City Council's request to institute a 120-day moratorium on dollar stores. The vote was 4-3 in favor of the moratorium.

The City Council itself had voted 5-0 in favor of the moratorium on Jan. 14.

City staff had proposed that the city use a moratorium to give city staff time to determine if more regulations are needed for dollar stores to keep them from crowding out other grocery options. 

Planning board member Sybil Dodson-Lucas said she was in favor of the moratorium and was concerned about the impact of dollar stores on the city.

“Where you have a proliferation of these kinds of stores, other kinds of commercial enterprises that people want will not come in, because they will say there is no market."

 

— SYBIL DODSON-LUCAS, planning baord memebr

“Where you have a proliferation of these kinds of stores, other kinds of commercial enterprises that people want will not come in, because they will say there is no market," she said. “There are an awful lot of people in Palm Coast that are concerned about these stores popping up all over our neighborhoods."

Another board member said he didn’t think a 120-day moratorium would cause any harm, since there are no dollar store proposals in the pipeline. He added, “I don’t have a problem with that, but I think it's a slippery slope."

Some board members had concerns about the length of the time frame.

“I think staff is going to act as quickly as they possibly can on this,” said Katie Reischmann, one of the city’s attorneys. “I think they're asking for 120 days just to be safe, so they don't have to keep coming back." 

 

Latest News

×

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning local news.