Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE BOARD HAS BEEN PRESENTED TODAY <br />WITH A GOOD DEAL OF INFORMATION AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE <br />OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY IT. <br />ATTORNEY CLEM FELT THAT EVERYTHING THEY PRESENTED WAS SUMMARIZED. <br />Hp NOTED THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE PRESENT TODAY, AND HE HOPED THEY <br />WOULD NOT ALL HAVE TO COME BACK AT A LATER TIME. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF <br />THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OR JUST ACCEPT THE SUMMARY. <br />AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN WODTKE ADVISED THOSE WHO HAD APPEARED <br />FOR THE 11:00 O'CLOCK HEARING, THAT DISCUSSION ON ITEM #S WOULD BE HELD <br />OVER UNTIL 1:30, <br />COMMISSIONER LOY STATED THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY <br />AND SHE APPRECIATES IT AND NOW WANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE IN- <br />FORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. <br />THE BOARD THEN RECESSED FOR A FEW MOMENTS. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE COMMISSIONERS WISHED TO ASK <br />QUESTIONS OF ANYONE WHO HAS PRESENTED MATERIAL. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, <br />HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF <br />THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE ZONING. HE STATED FROM WHAT HE HAS <br />HEARD TODAY, HE WOULD INFER THAT ONCE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CHANGED, <br />YOU ARE ALMOST LEGALLY BOUND TO GRANT THE REZONING, AND THAT HAS NEVER <br />BEEN HIS IMPRESSION. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IF THE PLAN, AS IT IS FINALLY <br />ADOPTED, SHOWS A MULTIPLE USE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME TO THE <br />COMMISSION REQUESTING THE USE, HE FELT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE HARD <br />BOUND NOT TO GRANT IT ONCE THE USE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WHERE THE <br />PLAN SHOWS ANOTHER TYPE USE, HE FELT THERE WOULD BE LITIGATION TO <br />DECIDE IT. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THE <br />CURRENT LAND USE PLAN IS OFFICIALLY OUR LAND USE PLAN AS SUCH, AND <br />HE STATED THAT IT IS NOT TRUE AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY INVOLVING <br />AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-12. THIS IS NOT A 163 PROCEEDING; WE ARE JUST <br />STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT AMENDING AN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE COUNTY. <br />20 <br />9. <br />i <br />1 I <br />OCT 2 61978 <br />