4/23/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

k 41 342 ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND CONTINUED THAT IN 1957 WHEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING WENT IN, EVERYTHING ALONG ROUTE 60 FOR A 660' DEPTH WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND ANYTHING ON WALKER AVENUE WAS R -Z; THEN SOME REZONING WAS DONE TO GO ALONG WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND -THE APPLICANT S PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO AGRICULTURAL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS A HOLDING ZONE AND IF THERE WAS A BASIC .NEED, THE PROPERTY COULD BE ZONED BACK. HE FELT THAT THE BOARD HAD PROPERLY ENVISIONED THE FUTURE IN THE MASTER PLAN BY HAVING COMMERCIAL NUBS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF ROUTE 60, AND NOTED.THERE IS A CHANGE OF CHARACTER COMING TO THE AREA AND YOU NEED TO HAVE THE NORMAL TYPE OF THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL, OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL, ALONG YOUR MAJOR ROAD COMING INTO TOWN. THERE ARE ALREADY RESIDENCES AND TRAILER PARKS IN THIS AREA, AND AS TO CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, IF YOU WENT INTO THE PRESENT R-1 ZONE TO THE NORTH, YOU WOULD BE CREATING THE SAME NEED, ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND FELT THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PLANT NEW GROVES ARE GOING OUT INTO THE ST. JOHNS DRAINAGE DISTRICT, AND HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS SAID THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS PROPER. ALFRED'BARTLETT, WHO OWNS TEN ACRES IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE WALKER PROPERTY, WISHED TO BE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION RECALLED THAT THE ZONING BOARD VOTED 4 TO 1 AGAINST THIS REQUEST, AND CONTINUED THAT ALTHOUGH HIS PROPERTY IS R-1 NOW, WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, IT WAS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. THEY DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE CHANGED TO R-1. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INFORMED HIM THAT THE BOARD DID NOT REZONE THIS PROPERTY; IT WAS R-1, AND MR. BARTLETT STATED THAT IT WAS AGRICULTURALLY EXEMPT PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN AGRICULTUR- ALLY EXEMPT WITHOUT BEING ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND CONCURRED THAT THIS BOARD DID NOT CHANGE THE ZONING TO R-1. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.