4/21/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

but it was his opinion that it would be advantageous to require it for this Board's benefit. Mr. Challacombe believed the Planning & Zoning Commission understood the analytical rationale_ of staff, but because of the strong objections presented by the many area residents who came to the hearing, the rezoning was denied based on the presentation that the predominant use in the area was single family. In further discussion, it was agreed that the Planning & Zoning Commission obviously made a judgment, but apparently it did not get written down and the developer deserves a reason for denial other than just the number of people in the audience. Thelma Lightfoot of Sunset Drive noted that the drainage ditch spoken of previously will be right in the back of her yard where she has some fruit trees and across from that is a canal. She asked what she will do with A-. canal on both sides, and emphasized that they had 202 people sign a petition opposing the proposed development. Commissioner Wodtke commented that if this property were 0 single family, there still could be a need for a ditch. He wished to know if Mrs. Lightfoot was opposed to duplexes vs. single family or to the ditch. Mrs. Lightfoot stated that she was opposed to multi family and the ditch. Jane Nedell pointed out to the Board that the petition signed by residents of the area was in opposition to duplexes. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner FLetcher, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that to him the question is do 5 we increase the density in that area or.do we not: He felt it is his duty to look.at the fairness to both sides and determine what is in the best interests of those living here now, and it is fairly clear that the neighbors oppose this and are greatly concerned with water problems and traffic problems that would be caused by increased density. 51 APR 211982 BOOK 451