9/19/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r S E P 19, 1954 BOOK 58 PAGE 380: commercial use now. They feel that the site plan never should have been considered in the first place. Harold Putnam, a Director of the Vista Royale Association, stated that Vista Royale residents are angry because they believe the Planning Department is ignoring State law in regard to what can be done with a non -conforming commercial parcel that has been in existence for a long period of time and strongly object to the proposed retail center and restaurant because they believe it will lower their property values. Mr. Putnam presented three legal problems the County might encounter if they proceed: 1) Lower property values may result in property owners asking for an abatement of their taxes; 2) Law suits holding the County responsible for traffic accidents that are bound to happen on U.S. #1; and 3) Law suits resulting from staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 25, Subsection J, under Section 2 relating to non -conforming uses. He advised that Vista Royale intends to pursue the language in this law. Mr. Putnam believed this is a matter of grave importance and urged the Board to give great consideration to their objections. Claude Perosa, resident of Vista Royale, felt the Planning & Zoning Commission was very fair and open at the last meeting even though some of the Vista Royale residents were rather rude. He stated that he has been aware of this project for six months and has seen the plans, but the Association's Board has steadfastly refused to discuss or show the site plan to anyone in Vista Royale. He believed the directors of Vista Royale have their rights, but pointed out that they live in the two buildings adjacent to the site and have tried to round up all the opposition possible and have them in attendance today. Mr. Perosa objected to the president and director of Vista Royale Association appearing M