Laserfiche WebLink
c <br />.COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER DISAGREED AND DID NOT FEEL THAT IT HAS <br />BEEN PROVEN THAT THIS IS AN ILLEGAL NON—CONF-ORMING USE. HE FELT THIS IS <br />MORE A BATTLE OF ACCESS THAN OF A PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE - <br />HAVE BEEN NO OTHER COMPLAIMTS. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER THAT THE BOARD NOT <br />RULE THIS NON—CONFORMITY ILLEGAL AS RECOMMENDED BY -THE ATTORNEY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED HE DOES NOT FEEL THE SALE OF THE PLANTS <br />IS ILLEGAL, BUT HE ALSO DOES NOT FEEL YOU CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL PRODUCT <br />LINES. <br />i <br />THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THAT THE BOARD DETERMINE THAT A VIOLATION DOES EXIST, BUT INSTRUCT <br />THE ATTORNEY NOT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION UNTIL THE ATTORNEYS CAN GET TO— <br />GETHER TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE RIGHT—OF-111AY SITUATION THAT SEEMS TO BE AT <br />i <br />THE BOTTOM OF THIS MATTER AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD. <br />COMMISSIONER DEESON FELT ALL MRS. CRUZE HAS TO DO TO CONFORM <br />IS TO CEASE TO SELL ANYTHING BESIDES SHRUBS, PLANTS AND TREES. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE IS NOT CONVINCED IT <br />ORIGINALLY WAS A COMMERCIAL OPERATION AS THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY SELLS <br />SOMETHING'FROM THEIR PROPERTY DOES PLOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A COMMERCIAL <br />OPERATION. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE MOTION DOES NOT SPECIFI— <br />CALLY STATE THAT THE VIOLATION RELATES TO THE ADDITIONAL PRODUCT LINES. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT SAID HE FELT IF THE QUESTION OF INGRESS <br />AND EGRESS WERE RESOLVED, IT MIGHT RESOLVE THE WHOLE MATTER AS THERE <br />SEEMS TO BE NO PROBLEM WITH OTHER SURROUNDING OWNERS, <br />COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED, BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO <br />US, IT WOULD APPEAR THERE IS A VIOLATION, BUT HOPEFULLY THE PARTIES CAN <br />RESOLVE THIS MATTER. <br />ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACCESS ROAD UNDER <br />DISCUSSION IS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY, AND THE USE OF THIS ROAD LIES <br />UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IF THE DRAINAGE <br />DISTRICT DENIED THEM USE OF THE ROAD, BOTH MRS. CRUZE AND THE WASHBURNS <br />WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY, <br />11 <br />JAN 41978 <br />�coK 33 apt d <br />