A conditional use permit for a liquor store denied by the Planning Commission was presented to the Pea Ridge City Council Tuesday night. Chuck Simmons, owner of property at 165 W. PIckens Rd., appealed the planners’ decision to the council, which, after much discussion, tabled the request until the July meeting to hear more information.
Mayor Jackie Crabtree was not present; city recorder Sandy Button presided over the meeting in his absence. She read a letter from the mayor encouraging the council members to “stand behind” the Planning Commission members as they had made the decision they believed was in the best interests of the citizens of Pea Ridge based on the school zone, ingress and egress of the location.
Police Chief Tim Ledbetter told council members that the Alcohol Beverage Control Board had reinvestigated the location and said it is too close to a church (less than 1,000 feet) for a permit and the investigator would e-mail that decision to city officials. The e-mail had not been received prior to the meeting.
Council member Ray Easley said: “It sounds like knit picking to me ... I went over there, droveover - it looked like pretty clear.
I spent 40 years of my life on this corner. The school traffic is only from
7:30 to 8 a.m. There was no one there from school to oppose, no one from highway, no one from clergy. Those would be pretty important. The voters from Pea Ridge in November voted to accept wet. So, those same voters would like to have liquor in Pea Ridge.
“It’s as good a place as any,” Easley said. “Chuck owns that building. He pays property taxes.
Anybody that comes to Pea Ridge and invests, I’m for that business 100 percent.”
Simmons said: “I’ve met all the conditions for the state and I thought we were in compliance.”
City building official Tony Townsend told the council that the planners main concerns were line of sight, ingress and egress, then added: “They allowed another business to be there. To me, it’s no different. I mean, we have other businesses with worse line of sight. It was their decision it wasn’t the best fit.”
“My understanding is not whether we have a liquor store, but the location. I firmly back up the Planning Commission. I’ve only lived here 30 years, but I know that’s a pretty busy corner andthere are some blind spots to it. I feel like this is not the best location for that type of business,” Bob Cottingham, council member, said.
“Where would you suggest we put one?” Easley countered.
“That’s not for me to decide. We put our faith in the Planning Commission.
Their decision was unanimous. It’s not that they’re saying they’re against the business, just the location.
I’m going to back them up,” Cottingham continued.
Council member Steve Guthrie said: “It’s a business. Is any business appropriate for that location.
You’ve got to look past what it is.”
“There were citizens in objection that took the time to voice their opinions.
They’re also tax-paying citizens,” Cottingham said, referring to the people who appeared at Planning Commission and at Council.
“The comments we heard that night were about the children transported - and walking - back and forth between the two schools,” Ledbetter said.
“It’s not just the driveways.”
“If ABC rescinds, it’s a moot point,” Howard Slinkard, city attorney, said.
“Waiting might be the prudent thing to do.”
Cottingham made a motion to table the issue twomonths based on Slinkard’s recommendation. The motion died for lack of a second. Guthrie moved to revisit the question at the July meeting, it was seconded by Easley and passed.
In other business, the council:
◊Accepted the bid from Diamond C Construction for construction a sidewalk along Hayden Road (Ark.
Hwy. 265) from the high school to the city park;
◊Approved the sale of used vehicles and purchase of a truck for the Water/ Wastewater Department;
◊Approved the purchase of a four-wheel-drive truck for the Street Department.
News, Pages 1 on 05/29/2013