4/21/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 21.1982 9 PAVF that must be met, it would be up to the individual owner as to the type of duplex he built, the style, the quality, etc. Mrs. Harriet Woods, 2104 Sunrise Drive, opposed the rezoning expressing great concern about the impact of duplex housing on the character of the area as well as on traffic and water. Loretta Hamilton wanted to know about ditches, noting that her backyard the subject property, y � p p y, and she would hate to have a ditch put there. Chairman Scurlock noted that at this point we are not considering what physically is going to be built there, just the density, and Commissioner Lyons commented that no matter what goes there, ditches will be needed for drainage. Mrs. Jackson, 1934 2nd Ave. SW, informed the Board that she has a deep well and just in the last year the water level has gone down considerably. She wished to know how it was planned to provide water to the 94 families who would be allowed by duplex zoning. Attorney Quinn reported that right now there are two possibilities being looked at. There is a water franchise application pending with the county, which was the intended way - to provide water. Since that time, his client also has entered into discussion re the possibility of hooking up with the County system on Oslo Road. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, noted that this is an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission denial, and he wished to know why the rezoning was turned down by that Commission in the first place. In discussion, the Board felt the Planning & Zoning Minutes reflect that the decision was influenced by the number of the people appearing at the meeting who were opposed to the rezoning requested. The Chairman asked if there isn't a requirement that a specific reason for denial be stated in the Motion, and Planning Manager Art Challacombe stated there is no definite requirement, 50