Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />J <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS SOME LEGAL OBJECTIONS <br />TO CREATING SPECIAL CATEGORIES WITHIN A CERTAIN ZONE. <br />MR. BERG NOTED THATINEVERY ZONING YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACKS. <br />AND POINTED OUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TAKES INTO <br />CONSIDERATION PERMITTING A COMMERCIAL USE IN AN AREA THAT MIGHT NOT <br />NORMALLY ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES. HE CONTINUED THAT HE COULD SEE NOTHING <br />WRONG WITH REQUIRING A GREATER SETBACK TO PROTECT HIGHWAY TRAFFIC, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM HERE IS <br />THAT SOME B-1 AREAS FRONT ON HIGHWAYS AND SOME DON'T. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE B-1 PROPERTY DOES NOT FRONT <br />ON A STATE ROAD, WHAT SETBACK IS REQUIRED? <br />MR, BERG WAS NOT SUM <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE POSSIBILITIES OF GETTING A VARIANCE <br />IN THIS SITUATION OR PERHAPS SETTING UP A B-2 ZONE WITH DIFFERENT SETBACKS. <br />IT WAS GENERALLY -AGREED THE MATTER NEEDED MORE STUDY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF -ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHED TO <br />SPEAK. NO ONE DID. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ORDI <br />NANCE 71-3, SECTION 18-F PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION TO THE 75' SETBACK UPON <br />PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT ABUT ON A HIGHWAY OR A STATE ROAD AND RECOMMENDED <br />THIS MATTER BE RESUBMITTED TO THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER STUDY. <br />THE HOUR OF 11:00 O'CLOCK A. M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY <br />CLERK -READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH. PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, <br />TO -WIT: <br />m <br />