Laserfiche WebLink
MR. MARSH FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ROSELAND STREET, ON THE <br />EAST SIDE PARALLELING THE RAILROAD, IS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THIS TIME, <br />AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID NOT FIND SIGNIFICANT REASONS TO <br />REJECT THIS REQUEST. HE ADDED THAT THEY DID FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD <br />BE ON RECORD SOME KIND OF ACCOMMODATION OF RETAINING AT LEAST ONE <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT COULD BE LINKED BETWEEN THE ToWNSITE OF ROSELAND <br />AND THE RAILROAD. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS OF THE REQUEST. <br />MR. MARSH REPLIED THAT IT WAS FOR THE EXTRA PROPERTY. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING GAINED BY MAKING <br />THIS MOVE AT THE PRESENT TIME; IF WE DO MAKE THIS MOVE, THE COUNTY <br />CLOSES THEIR OPTIONS, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF IT <br />EITHER, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHAT HARM WE WILL BE DOING BY RETAINING IT. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS WONDERED IF THE PETITIONER WOULD WANT <br />TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IF THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT <br />THEY DO NOT EXPECT TO VOTE FAVORABLY ON IT. <br />MR. MARSH SUGGESTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD <br />CONVEY THE FEELING OF THE BOARD BACK TO THE APPLICANT, AND ASK THEM <br />IF THEY WISH TO PURSUE THIS FURTHER; IF THEY D0, THEN TO COME BACK <br />AT ANOTHER TIME. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT, <br />AND COMMISSIONER DEESON STATED THAT HE WOULD ALSO. <br />COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW <br />HIS REASON ON THE APPLICATION FOR WANTING THIS ABANDONMENT. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INSTRUCTED MR. MARSH TO CONVEY THE FEELINGS <br />FROM THE BOARD THAT UNLESS THERE ARE SOME GOOD REASONS FOR THIS <br />ABANDONMENT, THE BOARD HAS DECLINED TO DO S0, <br />SENIOR PLANNER MARSH NEXT DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING LETTER: <br />43 <br />NOV 51980 <br />