Laserfiche WebLink
N 0 V 18 1991 �. <br />believed that for R -2D, he would have to go back to Planning <br />& Zoning. <br />Administrator Nelson stated he had understood that if <br />you go to a less restrictive zoning, the advertising would <br />cover that situation. <br />Attorney Collins commented that he took the position in <br />this particular situation that the Board would be better off <br />readvertising; although in the past, he has given the <br />opinion when the district involved was R -2A or R -2B, that it <br />could drop down to the lesser, those ordinances were <br />consistent with one another while the R -2D District has some <br />distinctions. <br />Considerable discussion continued in regard to the <br />notification process, and Mr. Paz wished to know whether the <br />adjacent property owners could rezone this property back to <br />R-1. <br />Attorney Collins stated there is no reason why <br />surrounding property owners cannot make an application for <br />rezoning if they feel there is an inconsistency in their <br />area. <br />Fred Briggs urged the Board to consider the 10 -acres, <br />the number of people that would result the rezoning, the <br />traffic, etc. He felt the area cannot take.such development <br />and noted the land was sold for Commercial. <br />Attorney Collins felt if there is any further <br />discussion, the applicant should be present. <br />Mr. Briggs again wished to know if it is the <br />responsibility of the County to notify people within 300' <br />because he believed this is being neglected, and he was <br />assured that this will be checked into to assure there is no <br />breakdown in the notification process. <br />Commissioner Fletcher wished the record to reflect that <br />the public notice for the rezoning of the 10.10 acres held <br />in May was advertised to be held on Thursday in the month of <br />May, but did not state the date of the specific Thursday. <br />F <br />