Laserfiche WebLink
Q <br />MRS. DOT FRIBURG, OF79TH AVENUE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION. <br />MR. WILLIAM L. MEYER OF 79TH AVENUE APPEARED IN <br />OPPOSITION. <br />MR. FLOYD HUDSON SPOKE IN OPPOSITION AND PRESENTED <br />HIS BILL OF SALE AND DEED WHICH STATED NO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS <br />WOULD BE ALLOWED. <br />ATTORNEY BURCH STUDIED THE DOCUMENTS AND POINTED <br />OUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE ON EACH LOT SEPARATELY, NOT THE <br />SUBDIVISION AS A WHOLE. <br />ATTORNEY QUINN POINTED OUT THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA <br />IS ABUTTED ON .ITS OUTSIDE EDGES BY R-3 ZONING.. <br />CHAIRMAN LOY REMARKED THAT THE REZONING OF STATE <br />ROAD 60 TOOK QUITE A LENGTH OF TIME, AND SHE FELT IT WAS <br />PART OF MR. WALKERS RESONSIBILITY TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT <br />WAS GOING ON IN THE COUNTY WHERE HE OWNED PROPERTY. <br />CHAIRMAN LOY ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE HOMEOWNERS <br />PRESENT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL <br />WHEN MOST OF THEM HAD BUILT THERE, <br />A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, SECONDED <br />BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY TO DENY'"THE REQUEST FOR REZONING <br />OF THE ROSCHLACH AND WALKERS PROPERTY, AS ADVERTISED. <br />AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, THE MOTION AND THE SECOND <br />WERE WITHDRAWN. <br />A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, <br />SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY <br />AGREED THAT THE PORTION OF THE ADVERTISED PROPERTY KNOWN <br />AS MR. ROSCHACH'S PROPERTY BE DENIED THE REQUESTED REZONING. <br />A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT THAT THE <br />REQUEST FOR REZONING THAT PORTION OF THE ADVERTISED PROPERTY <br />KNOWN AS MR. WALKER'S PROPERTY BE APPROVED. THE MOTION DIED <br />FOR LACK OF A SECOND. <br />A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED <br />BY COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THAT THE REQUEST FOR REZONING <br />THE PORTION OF THE ADVERTISED PROPERTY KNOWN AS MR. WALKER'S <br />PROPERTY BE DENIED. <br />AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT <br />il <br />JUN 1. 19A r lJooP W1 228 <br />