Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock felt the applicant wants to make that <br />irregular area into a rectangle. <br />Mr. Shearer stated that the measurement is 165 x 210, <br />and it actually is a rectangle. Staff's main intent is to <br />rezone in conformance with the Plan and the property to the <br />east is split by the zoning district. <br />Attorney Block stated that they only want the portion <br />excluded that is in the commercial zoning. All they are <br />talking about is a difference of one acre, and they do not <br />see that as not in conformity with the Plan. <br />Mr. Shearer felt with .8 acres, there may not be <br />development for quite sometime; increasing the size, <br />--however, might encourage someone to put in a new building. <br />He felt it is up to the Commission to decide whether that is <br />good or bad. <br />Discussion continued, and Commissioner Lyons commented <br />that if we begin to give here, the question is where do we <br />stop? <br />Planning Keating explained that it is not the purpose <br />of the Comprehensive Plan to create non -conformities. The <br />parcel that was exempted has an existing commercial use on <br />property that was zoned commercial; it is conforming; and <br />that is why it was left out. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the other parcel which is <br />being left out ever appeared as a site plan, and Attorney <br />Block informed the Board that the site plan for the 1.79 <br />acres was approved by the County in 1974 and he has it with <br />him. <br />Planning Manager Keating pointed out that if the <br />building was not constructed, the site plan would have been <br />voided. <br />Planner Shearer noted that the property to the south <br />has an old building that is not being used but he felt it <br />was there before the site plan. Attorney Block confirmed <br />33 <br />S E P 5 1984 Box 58 f'AGE 139 <br />