Laserfiche WebLink
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE MOTION MADE IS APPROPRIATE. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE PROCEDURES FOR <br />ADVERTISING AND APPEALS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IN HIS <br />EXPERIENCE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF REZONING REQUESTS ARE EITHER <br />APPROVED OR APPEALED AND WOULD COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY <br />COMMISSIONERS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS. IN THIS CASE, <br />HOWEVER, THE REQUEST WAS DENIED AND THERE WAS NO APPEAL. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE TO VOTE FOR <br />DENYING SOMETHING WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN COME BEFORE THE BOARD, AND HE <br />WOULD'PREFER JUST TO WITHDRAW THE MATTER FROM THE AGENDA. <br />ATTORNEY O'HAIRE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED <br />FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST ASKING <br />US TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE ZONING BOARD. - <br />ASSISTANT PLANNER BERG STATED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF <br />OBJECTS, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPEAL OR THEY <br />WOULD HAVE. <br />ADMINISTRATOR .KENNINGS COMMENTED THAT THIS PROBLEM WOULD <br />NOT HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM WHERE'THE HEARINGS WERE <br />ADVERTISED SEPARATELY, BUT COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THE NEW SYSTEM <br />IS OF BENEFIT TO THE PETITIONERS EVEN THOUGH AN OCCASIONAL PROBLEM <br />WILL ARISE. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, IT WAS VOTED ON, <br />CHAIRMAN 4JODTKE VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED. <br />THE HOUR OF 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY <br />CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, <br />TO -WIT: <br />27 <br />JUN 71978 �U�a 35 PA,r 70 <br />1-1 <br />