Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />MR. REVER STATED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION`. <br />AND THE PLANNING STAFF BOTH AGREE THAT WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE <br />HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY IS R -2D ZONING. <br />ATTORNEY SAMUEL BLOCK CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING <br />.JOHN MAQUIRE, AGENT FOR LARRY CUMMINS, BOTH OF WHOM WERE PRESENT AT <br />THE MEETING. ATTORNEY BLOCK STATED THAT MR. REVER WAS INCORRECT AND <br />THAT ACTUALLY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HAD VOTED 4 TO 1 IN <br />FAVOR OF R -2B ZONING, NOT R-21). HE CONTINUED THAT HIS CLIENT'S <br />PROPERTY IS ABOUT 900' SOUTH OF THE DORAN PROPERTY AND THERE ARE SOME <br />DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. HE STATED THAT THEY CONCUR <br />WITH THE 12.2 ACRES PRESENTLY C-lA BEING CHANGED TO R-213, AND THE <br />PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE THAT WAY. THEY ALSO ARE WILLING <br />TO TAKE THE R-3 PORTION THAT THEY REFER TO AS PARCEL C AND GO TO R -2B <br />THERE ADDITIONALLY. THEY SUGGEST THAT THE PORTION CALLED PARCEL A, <br />FRONTING ON U.S. 1, BE IN C -1A, AND BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING.DEPART- <br />MENT DOES CONCUR WITH THIS AND THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TREND <br />FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A NODE OF COMMERCIAL. IN DIFFERENTIATION <br />FROM THE DORAN PROPERTY, WHERE THERE WERE NUMEROUS PEOPLE OBJECTING TO <br />THE PROPOSED REZONING, THEY HAVE 58 SIGNATURES OF PEOPLE IN THE AREA <br />ENDORSING THEIR PROJECT AND WHO WISH THAT COMMERCIAL AREA TO STAY THERE. <br />-ATTORNEY BLOCK REPEATED THAT -THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THEIR R-3 BEING <br />CHANGED TO R-213, EVEN THOUGH IT_WASN'T ADVERTISED, AND BOTH THE OWNER <br />AND HIS AGENT AGREE. HE STATED THAT.HE,DID NOT WISH TO GET INTO THE <br />ISSUE OF DENSITY AVERAGING,- BUT -SINCE -THEIR PROJECT I.S PLANNED FOR _ <br />7.53.UNITS PER ACRE, IT CAN FIT NICELY INTO THE ZONING HE HAS SUGGESTED. <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER CONTINUED TO CONTEND THAT THE MOTION <br />OF THE.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WAS TO APPROVE THE REC-OMMENDATION - <br />MADE BY THE PLANNING.DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS TO --REZONE FROM C-lA TO R -2D, <br />AND ATTORNEY BLOCK JUST AS -FIRMLY STATED THAT WAS NOT SO; AND, IF <br />NECESSARY, HE FELT THE MEMBERS OF_THE PLANNING_& ZONING.COMMISSION <br />SHOULD -BE POLLED TO CONFIRM THIS.. <br />IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, <br />WHO WAS PRESENT AT -THE MEETING IN QUESTION, THAT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING, <br />BUT HE BELIEVED THAT ATTORNEY BLOCK WAS CORRECT. - <br />iWAY0_BOOK 6- PACE512 <br />i9� 7 - 65 <br />