My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/5/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
4/5/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:07 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:10:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/05/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
a <br />WORDING INSERTED IS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED <br />THAT PRIOR EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT INDIVIDUALS DON `T INITIATE <br />A MASS BASIS REZONING, AND ARE NORMALLY TALKING ABOUT ONE OR TWO <br />PARCELS, BUT IF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO REZONE, IT USUALLY INVOLVES <br />A LARGE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY, WHEN REZONING ON A MASS LEVEL, IT <br />POSES A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AND THE - <br />ADMINISTRATOR TO COMPLY WITH MAILING NOTICES TO EVERYONE WITHIN <br />300'. THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE HAS, THEREFORE, WORDED THE <br />ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATOR <br />TO SEND NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' ON ZONING CHANGE <br />REQUESTS THAT INCLUDE IO PARCELS OR LESS. ON A LARGER NUMBER <br />THE COUNTY MAY JUST ADVERTISE WITHOUT SENDING INDIVIDUAL NOTICES, <br />EXCEPT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER FELT THE WORDING SHOULD EXPLICITLY <br />STATE THAT WHEN MORE THAN 10 LOTS ARE INVOLVED, NOTICE WILL BE <br />DONE BY ADVERTISING,.BUT THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE <br />NOTIFIED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS REQUIRED BY <br />STATE STATUTE, AND HE FELT SUCH WORDING WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS. <br />COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT OUR REGULATIONS ACTUALLY <br />REQUIRE MORE THAN REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE. <br />DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO MAKING THE ORDINANCE <br />MORE FLEXIBLE. <br />ZONING DIRECTOR, DEWEY IIIALKER, STATED THAT IN HIS OPINION <br />THE FEE PAID FOR A PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD NOT BE RETURNED WHEN AN <br />APPEAL IS DENIED. HE NOTED THE ADVERTISEMENTS MUST BE PAID FOR, PLUS <br />RESEARCH DONE BY THE STAFF AND SECRETARIAL WORK. HE NOTED THAT IF <br />THE REQUEST IS DENIED ON THE TENTATIVE BASIS AND DOESN'T GO TO <br />PUBLIC HEARING, THEY DO REFUND THE MONEY, BUT AFTER A HEARING YOU <br />DO NOT GET THE MONEY BACK. <br />ASSISTANT PLANNER BERG AGREED THAT A GREAT DEAL OF WORK IS <br />INVOLVED EVEN WITH THE FIRST APPLICATION. <br />27 <br />• <br />34 �Au <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.