Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />applicant feels he has been unfairly treated and questions <br />have been raised as to the validity of the information on <br />which the Planning & Zoning Commission based their decision, <br />he was willing to give the applicant the benefit of the <br />doubt and allow them another 60 days. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that he has had a serious <br />concern in regard to the net effect of the mobile home <br />community on the county; there has been a suggestion that <br />they generate less taxes and higher demand for services, and <br />he felt we need documentation as to whether we have the <br />accurate facts. <br />Commissioner Fletcher stated that his question relates <br />to the quality of life, and he believed he has enough <br />information about that today. <br />Commissioner Wodtke agreed we should have all the facts <br />and be sure that this has been properly presented. He <br />stated that he relies heavily on the recommendations made by <br />the Planning & Zoning Commission, however, and since this is <br />not going to be referred back to them, he hoped that <br />whatever takes place during the 60 day extension, the <br />Planning & Zoning Commission, as well as Mr. Orth who is <br />greatly concerned, will be included when we do make a <br />decision. <br />Commissioner Fletcher asked staff for their comments, <br />and Mr. King felt that the request for an extension can be <br />to the benefit of both applicant and staff. He stated that <br />he would like to be given an opportunity to make sure that <br />there has been no miscommunication. <br />Administrator Wright concurred with Mr. King that staff <br />needs some more time. <br />4 <br />F <br />S EP 15 1952 <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with <br />Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. <br />84 <br />@Ox 51 PAGE 342 <br />