7/13/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J u L 131982 scox 50 F.,A Gr X386 Recently we learned the flexible/expandable node concept has changed and that the number of acres of land to go into a node was limited. We are now under the impression that which particular limited acreage is included within the node is either decided or recommended by the planning and rezoning department. We were recently advised the O'Neill property was not included in the so called limited acres for the Route 60 node, as the node was used up with other acreage in that area. In our discussions with the planning and zoning department, they appear to be very sympathetic with the appropriateness with my client's property being included within the node, but felt their hands were tied with the limited number of acres. This firm respectively calls to the board's attention the fact that the O'Neill property is ideally suited to be included within the node rather than exluded. With reference to the attached sketch of our property, you will see the property is surrounded by I-95 on the West, the industrial property on the North, a large packing house on the East and a natural and permanent barrier of a sixty foot right-of-way with canal to the South. I understand it makes good planning sense to include the O'Neill property in the commercial/ industrial node. To do otherwise would limit the property to a residential usage once the property is rezoned -and it would have to be. In that event, r.esidential property would then border I-95, industrial property and the packing house, which would seem to be extremely poor planning when the practical answer -the answer we were advised of earlier in the year by the planning department, seems straight forward. We would very much appreciate your consideration of either including us in the node under the present number of acres set aside for that purpose or to add additional acreage in the node. Thank you for your attention and consideration in this matter. Very ruly yours, Eugene J. O'Neill