4/9/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 91990 mox 43 PAUE213 DID NOT OPPOSE THAT REZONING BECAUSE HE FELT A KENNEL IS MORE OF A COMMERCIAL USE THAN AN AGRICULTURAL USE AND THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THAT PROPOSED KENNEL WERE ALL COMMERCIAL. MR. MACKENZIE'S REQUEST IS FOR REZONING TO PUT A KENNEL IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND HE, THEREFORE, WOULD OPPOSE THE REZONING. JOEL KEEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE SO ACRE R-lE TRACT AND IT WAS AT HIS REQUEST THAT THE BOARD REZONED THIS TO R-lE ABOUT A YEAR AGO. MR. KEEN STATED THAT MR. MACKENZIE WAS AWARE OF THE ZONING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURCHASE, AND CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD OPPOSE ANY CHANGE IN THE ZONING. FRANCES GRAVES STATED THAT SHE DID NOT WISH TO BE IN A VICINITY WITH ATTACK DOGS, AND QUESTIONED IF MR. MACKENZIE STARTED OUT WITH A FEW DOGS, WHERE IT WOULD END UP, SHE OPPOSED THE REZONING, EILEEN FARLEY QUESTIONED WHY MR. MACKENZIE WOULD SPEND $7,000 AN ACRE FOR A HOME SITE AND THEN ALL AT ONCE WANT TO RAISE TREES ON BURNT-OUT LAND. SHE BEGGED THE BOARD NOT TO CHANGE THE ZONING. ATTORNEY SULLIVAN STATED THAT HE FELT THESE ARGUMENTS ABOUT ATTACK DOGS ARE SPECIOUS. HE NOTED THAT IF MR. MACKENZIE HAS THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING, HE CAN ONLY PUT ONE HOUSE ON HIS LAND AND THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. HE FELT THAT IN ITSELF IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE REQUEST. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT SINCE MR. MACKENZIE OWNS THE LAND, NO ONE ELSE CAN PUT ANOTHER HOUSE ON IT ANYWAY. COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT THIS BOARD, IN THEIR BEST JUDGMENT, FELT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT LAND WAS TO CHANGE THE WHOLE TRACT TO R -IE JUST ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND SHE HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING TODAY THAT WOULD MAKE HER FEEL THAT TO CUT A SMALL CORNER OUT OF THE TRACT AND CHANGE IT TO AGRICULTURAL WOULD BE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 70 � 0 �