Burlington’s city council extended its unanimous blessing to three rezoning requests at its latest regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday.
These three requests included a tweak to the existing zoning of a business at 1453 Industry Drive that had been operating as a bar for more than a decade despite having been zoned as a “private club” in 2006. Dubbed Lucky’s Saloon, this establishment ultimately saw its good fortune run out earlier this year when the city’s planning staff noticed the apparent
inconsistency in its zoning. Since the staff’s discovery, Lucky’s has been unable to obtain a new permit to sell alcohol from the N.C. Alcohol Beverage Control Commission. The council’s newly-approved zoning change will allow this permit to go through and enable the bar to resume alcohol sales to its patrons.
Coverage of the planning board’s consideration of the Lucky’s Saloon rezoning request: https://alamancenews.com/planning-board-approves-request-that-would-allow-bar-to-remain-in-business/
The council has also adjusted the conditional zoning of another parcel at 378 Harden Street that had formerly been home to Medicap Pharmacy. The approved modifications will enable a firm called Chem Med to repurpose the defunct drug store as a general-purpose medical office.
Coverage of the planning board’s consideration of the Medical Pharmacy building rezoning: https://alamancenews.com/defunct-pharmacy-could-be-rezoned-for-medical-offices/
The third request which the council adopted on Tuesday extends a general business designation to the entirety of a lot at 1620 South Church Street that has long been home to Fogleman Motors. This parcel had previously been split between a general business and a residential zoning district.
Coverage of the planning board’s consideration of the rezoning for Fogleman Motors lot off South Church Street: https://alamancenews.com/planning-board-recommends-extension-of-commercial-use-along-church-st/
The council approved each of these three requests after a series of state-mandated public hearings that drew nary a peep from the general public. The council was nevertheless informed prior to its vote on the Fogleman Motors request that the city had gotten a written comment in opposition to that particular change. This submission didn’t prevent the council from voting 5-to-0 in favor of the request.
