My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/22/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
3/22/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:06 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:09:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/22/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Y <br />d <br />w <br />ADMINISTRATOR, BUT.EXPRESSED CONCERN IN REGARD TO HOW FAR YOU CAN <br />GO WITH AN INTENSIFICATION. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT INTENSIFICATION IS LEGAL, <br />BUT EXPANSION IS NOT. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDING OF FERTILIZER, <br />WOOD CHIPS, MULCH, ETC., WAS A CONSIDERABLE EXPANSION. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT WE HAVE NO PROVISION IN THE <br />ZONING ORDINANCE TO RETIRE NON -CONFORMITIES, AND FELT THE BOARD MAY <br />WANT TO CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING .SUCH PROVISIONS. HE AGREED THAT THE <br />STATUES AND FERTILIZER WERE CLEARLY AN EXPANSION. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER Loy, TO STATE THAT IMPORTATION AND WHOLESALE AND RETAIL <br />SALE OF PLANTS BY MRS. CRUZE IS AN INTENSIFICATION AND NOT A VIOLA- <br />TION, BUT ADDITION OF NEW PRODUCT LINES SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDINANCE <br />CONSTITUTES AN EXPANSION, WHICH IS A VIOLATION AND MUST BE CORRECTED. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE MOTION AS <br />HE FELT IT MIGHT PUT THE BOARD IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL HAVE <br />TO PURSUE THIS MATTER, <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER <br />SCHMUCKER VOTED IN OPPOSITION. ALL OTHERS VOTED IN FAVOR, AND THE <br />MOTION CARRIED. <br />WARREN ZEUCH, .JR., CHAIRMAN OF A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY <br />THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROMOTE A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, CAME <br />BEFORE THE BOARD AND REPORTED THAT, AS REQUESTED, THEY HAVE MET WITH <br />HOTEL OPERATORS AND OTHERS, AND SO FAR HAVE HAD NO REPERCUSSIONS IN <br />REGARD TO SUCH A TAX. HE ASKED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THIS ITEM <br />FAVORABLY AND PLACE IT ON THE SEPTEMBER PRIMARY BALLOT, WHICH <br />WOULD BE THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME WITHOUT HAVING A SPECIAL BALLOT. <br />J. B. NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF.THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, <br />DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD NEW RULINGS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE <br />ON HOW THESE FUNDS MUST BE USED. HE NOTED THAT PEOPLE IN REST HOMES <br />AND HOUSING AUTHORITIES WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE TAX, BUT THE SIX <br />MONTH IS PERIOD IS STILL A GRAY AREA AND WILL BE LOOKED INTO FURTHER. <br />HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN AMENDMENT INTRODUCED TO <br />(: <br />R 2-21978 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.