My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/21/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
11/21/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:09 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:46:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/21/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
MORE APPLICABLE TO WHAT WE FEEL THE AREA WILL DEVELOP INTO. IT DOES <br />NOT PRECLUDE THAT THERE WILL BE MULTI -FAMILY, ETC., BUT JUST SAYS WE <br />WILL LOOK AT IT IN MORE DETAIL. <br />. MR. ANSIN STATED THAT IN HIS VIEW ALL OF THE PROPERTIES <br />ADVERTISED SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING STAFF RATHER THAN TAKING <br />AN ARTIFICIAL SEGMENTATION AND ROLLING BACK THE ZONING ON 160 COMMERCIAL <br />ACRES. HE STATED THAT HE OBJECTS TO THE ROLLBACK WHEN THE PROPOSAL IS <br />TREATED IN THIS MANNER. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT WE.HAVE HEARD NO OTHER <br />OWNER REPRESENTATION OTHER THAN ONE LADY WHO OWNS A FEW LOTS. HE <br />CONTINUED THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE AREA MR. ANSIN IS DISCUSSING.IS THE <br />PROPER AREA FOR THE BUSINESS TO BE IN, BUT HE IS REALLY OF THE OPINION <br />THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH ACREAGE IN BUSINESS AND IN COMMERCIAL, AND HE IS <br />NOT IN FAVOR OF 12-15 UNIT ZONING AT THE PRESENT TIME IN ANY AREA UP <br />THERE NO MATTER WHO OWNS IT BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE SEWAGE FACILITIES OR <br />WATER. HOPEFULLY THESE SERVICES WILL BECOME AVAILABLE, AND THAT IS WHEN <br />WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS ZONING. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT WE ARE RELATIVELY <br />RESTRICTED TO THE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY. <br />MR. ANSIN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY DO OWN TWO QUADRANTS ON <br />THE EAST SIDE OF 510 BUT THEIR CONCERN REALLY IS ON THE WEST SIDE. IN <br />VIEW OF THE ACTION THE BOARD HAS ALREADY TAKEN THIS MORNING, HE SUGGESTED <br />THAT PERHAPS THE BOARD COULD REMAND THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF <br />t 510, PROCEED ON THE WEST SIDE WITH 80 ACRES OR SOMEWHAT LESS, AND REDUCE <br />THE DENSITY OF R-3 TO WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. <br />CHAIRMAN N+ODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE THE <br />TYPE OF THING THAT WOULD COME BACK FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT MR. ANSIN HAS SAID HE WOULD WAIVE <br />NOTICE, BUT THE ATTORNEY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOTICE TO THE REST OF THE <br />COUNTY RESIDENTS. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO GO OVER <br />THIS WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS, AND HE DOES NOT FEEL THAT IS.TOO LONG TO WAIT. <br />42 <br />NOV 211978 <br />BOOK J 3�j07 <br />FA.GE 30_ (i <br />j.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.