Laserfiche WebLink
_I <br />S E P 5 1984 BOOK 58 <br />Mr. Shearer reported that staff analyzed the request <br />and found there was not sufficient acreage to include the <br />subject property in the node. This was west of any other <br />industrial or commercial zoning in the area and west of the <br />line originally prepared to delineate an outer limit <br />boundary. Rezoning to M-1 is not consistent with the Land <br />Use Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unani- <br />mously to deny this request, and staff still recommends <br />denial. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that at the previous Commission <br />meeting where we were considering 58 acres on the other side <br />of the airstrip, staff was directed to go back and recon- <br />sider the size of the node. <br />Mr. Shearer confirmed that the Commission will consider <br />an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan next week regarding <br />this node. Staff has consistently felt the line of approxi- <br />mately 100th Avenue should be the outer limit for this node, <br />and, therefore, would not anticipate the subject property to <br />be part of the node even when enlarged. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared in behalf of himself <br />and his brother, Tom. He informed the Board that they have <br />owned this property since 1982; they purchased it after the <br />Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the node established at <br />Route 60; and it is their stand that to deny the rezoning is <br />inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and constitutes spot <br />zoning. <br />Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mr. O'Haire had any <br />objections to being heard by a four man board, and Mr. <br />O'Haire stated that he would have preferred all members to <br />be present, but would proceed as he believed there are <br />others in the audience who wish to be heard. <br />M <br />