Tidal Wave Denied
Originally Published: October 16, 2024
Commission Votes 5-2 on Concept Plan
The Planning Commission (PC) voted to deny the concept site plan for a proposed Tidal Wave Auto Spa, raising concerns about traffic safety. The plan, which aimed to build a car wash on a 4.5-acre site off Routes 4 and 235, would have added an estimated 780 daily trips to the area. Despite proposed mitigations, including a fee-in-lieu payment of $12,369.50 to offset traffic impacts, the commission cited unresolved safety issues as the primary reason for denial.
Commissioner Howard Thompson was particularly troubled by the proposed entrances on Routes 4 and 235, which he said were too close to merging lanes. “A very, very unsafe spot,” Thompson remarked. “I see an issue with people trying to get into the car wash through two lanes of merging traffic.”
Commissioner Lynn Delahay emphasized that safety standards set by the county’s zoning ordinance were not met, questioning how a mitigation fee would adequately address the problem. “Help me understand how a small fee will help this when it doesn’t meet the requirement,” Delahay said, referring to the $12,369.50 payment toward a traffic signal at FDR Boulevard/235/By the Mill Road.
Attorney Chris Longmore, representing Tidal Wave Auto Spa, argued the project met requirements and complied with the zoning laws. Discussions about a possible access road during the commission’s hearing on Riverside Townhomes, located nearby, caused Tidal Wave’s developer to explore the possibility. This road, if completed, would connect By the Mill Road with Abell House Lane, creating an alternate route through the area. However, Longmore acknowledged “there are topography issues in addition to ownership issues on the potential road.” Longmore said his client could provide an additional 10 feet of land to help facilitate a possible access road at the rear of the property, making the right of way (ROW) 40ft wide.
The ROW, which runs behind the Tidal Wave property, became a focal point of the meeting as questions arose about its ownership. Deputy County Attorney John Houser explained that the ROW had never been formally conveyed to the county, creating an ambiguous legal situation. “It was never really assigned,” Houser said, noting that resolving the ownership could require legal action or negotiating quitclaim deeds from adjacent property owners.
The site plan also required multiple variances due to the presence of wetlands, limiting space for landscaping and buffers. Nick Speech, the project engineer, explained that a wetland buffer variance was necessary for grading a proposed pass-through road.
Commissioner Joe VanKirk questioned why so many variances were needed on a 4.5-acre lot, with the car wash only occupying a third of the overall property. Speech explained that the wetlands constrained the width of the site plan, and while the design could potentially be shifted north, topographical challenges made this difficult. Two additional pad sites are available on the property, one of which include the wetlands.
Longmore urged the commission to consider what could potentially be built on the property if the car wash was rejected. “You should think about what could go there, and what is going there, and the reasonableness of it,” he said. Longmore also emphasized that the zoning on the land had been recommended by the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners just five years ago.
In the end, the PC voted 5-2 to deny the site plan. Commissioners Patricia Robrecht, Delahay, Thompson, and both Michael and John Brown voted in favor of denial, while VanKirk and Gerald Cousineau opposed the motion. The denial was largely based on safety concerns, particularly around traffic and the proposed site’s location. Thompson acknowledged the difficult decision but underscored the importance of safety. “It takes a lot for me to vote not to let somebody use their property,” he said, “but it’s a safety issue.”
It’s possible the applicant could appeal the PC’s decision with the Board of Appeals.
