"just not in the middle of a residential neighborhood" I would have to argue that statement due to the nature of the building and the ACTUAL location which is ON Lake st with a few houses behind it. You people are amazing. It's a shame that such selfishness prevented a compromise in this situation. Just because something may have been one way across the street you should not assume it would be that way at the new location. I know that Bakers was working to clean up the ABANDONED building (that no one seemed to care about before), set up a separate location for impounded cars, and not park the dump trucks there. I am starting to think that Bakers will be better off not having to deal with the callowness in that "hood". I wonder how long the people who fought this have even lived in that neighborhood. I am guessing not as long as Bakers has been serving the community there.

Selfishness? Why don't we park it in your backyard? Selfish is operating a business where you're not legally allowed to. Why do we even have laws, then? And it doesn't matter one bit how long anyone commenting on this has lived in that part of town or if they - like me - even live in that part of town at all. What matters is that we adhere to sound planning processes that have been long shown to bring about healthy neighborhoods and healthy business districts.

OK, well they might want to look up having a bubble put over their precious neighborhood being that MANY trucks drive up and down Lake st every day and directly across the street is a huge industrial plant, oh... and a few auto repair shops on the same side of the road not far down from this building. And if you were in a situation that you needed to park your vehicles in my backyard to save your lively hood, then I would have no problem with that. That's the difference between you and me, I think of others and how I would feel if I was in that situation. That property was not zoned r3 when the building was built, OBVIOUSLY. I know it is NOW, (unlike some people on here, I do listen to the other side of things) but there was always a chance it could have been changed again. And in my opinion, I think the neighbors made a big mistake by assuming he would be a bad neighbor. Selfishness: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. Seems to be the appropriate word here.

Molly, capitalization does not a sound argument make. It's not about hurting people's feelings or being selfish. It's about thoughtfully abiding by codes and policies that help both neighborhoods and businesses prosper. In a community, neighborhoods can't be sacrificed for the sake of business (or vice versa). There are numerous, appropriately zoned places for Mr. Baker to take his business in this town. Residents of that neighborhood, however, don't have the same options. If non-conforming zoning does happen, and they decide to move out of the neighborhood because of it, there is a likely chance that no one will buy or move into that property. You say you wouldn't mind a towing company in your backyard. The problem is, it's not going to be your backyard forever. If you would decide to move, would other people want you live in your house or would your property be undesirable and remain vacant? (This happens time and time again in "dying" cities when otherwise thriving communities are fractured by poor planning and never recover. The neighborhoods where I worked in for years in Cleveland were a perfect example.) Sound city planning doesn't just think about the people who reside in that neighborhood at the moment, it has to also consider the future sustainability of the community. The board made the right choice here.

@Casey: The capitalization was to stress the word in the point, which you OBVIOUSLY (like that) didn't get. And the fact that you state "There are numerous, appropriately zoned places for Mr. Baker to take his business in this town" makes me wonder where you got your information. There was a time limit to his move and I am sure that Bakers does not have an endless amount of money to spend. His options were indeed limited. I was stating a fact that zoning could be changed. It is possible, it has happened in the past, and I am sure will happen again in the future. This is how communities grow and prosper. You say that people wouldn't want to buy a house there because of a towing company? Well, the building that stands there now has not been used for anything for how long? It was trashy and needs work, but let it fall down next to your house, instead of making it useful to a company that provides a service for the citizens of Kent. No one cared about looking at a run down building, that makes the neighborhood look like no one wasn't to be around it, before Bakers moved in. I believe the FOUR (and again..stressing the word four) people on the board made the wrong choice.

Don't worry, Molly. I do understand what you are TRYING to say. In fact, your reasoning is overly simplistic, which is what keeps it from being a sound argument. If your bread and butter is selflessness vs. selfishness, I would recommend beginning your own appeals process so that Mr. Baker can set up shop on your property. If you are preaching selflessness, but not willing to do it in practice, you're just arguing to argue.

@Casey: "If you are preaching selflessness, but not willing to do it in practice, you're just arguing to argue." I can state facts, and my opinion, on the comments made by the people in this neighborhood. It's all in black and white. You have no idea what I have done and am willing to do for my community, or who I am, so I suggest you keep your unwarranted comments to yourself. A few people have said that Bakers had many choices of places he could have moved to. You all need to check your facts. It's frustrating that you keep talking about things you don't know about like you know. So just stop. And I am the one with no sound argument? WOW!

Maybe it will be another food service like Mel's Chuck Wagon! With 10+ trucks in and out of there at all hours of the day..hmmmm

These are all great ideas! No matter what, the building has a new owner who can and (probably) will use it; and using it for anything that falls under the wholesale and distribution would not require any additional action from the zoning board.
Now the building could also be left vacant, and fall to disrepair again, be used by criminals etc, but since I know of at least one neighbor who cares so much about this property, I am sure that someone would intervene.
Then again, If the owner chooses to sell I also know of some (between 12 and 200) neighbors that surely would be interested in purchasing it for use as a park or other greenspace... or perhaps the new owners of the factory way across the street will buy it and use it for a distribution center for the industrial manufacturing that will be happening soon. There is also talk of a multifaceted recycling center (with drop offs welcome! no worries it would be ACROSS the street too) so perhaps they could distribute the scrap materials..to reputable scrap dealers. Ahh the possibilities.... but alas none of this effects me since I don't live in the (perhaps soon to be aptly labeled) "HOOD".

That property may not be zoned for a school either.

Which makes me comment again about the condition and use of which the building has been in the past years...but that was ok to have in the neighborhood? If you and your neighbors are so concerned about how your neighborhood looks and what is there, then something should have been done with the property long ago. It amazes me that none of you seem to even care about "the other side of it"... about the jobs that may be lost, the families that may not have an income, the business that may have to shut their doors after many years of honest hard work because you refused to even give them a chance. You all assumed that it would be one way, and no one even thought twice about trying to compromise. You call it what you want, I call it selfish.