Laserfiche WebLink
M M <br />of activity, and that is why they made the recommendation to <br />go with only .8 acres instead of the entire 1.89 acres. <br />Attorney Cairns asked Director Keating if he and his <br />staff were aware that in 1974 the Commission approved a Plot <br />Plan for the 1.89 acres for commercial use and Director <br />Keating confirmed that he and his staff were not aware of <br />that before the meeting and it was not part of their <br />analysis and recommendation to the Board. <br />Attorney Brandenburg asked Director Keating if staff <br />had been aware of that, would that have changed their <br />recommendation, and Director Keating answered that in the <br />past their position has been that if a parcel had been used <br />or was being used in a lawfully conforming use at the time <br />the Comp Plan was adopted and was zoned commercial, they <br />normally would recommend that it retain its commercial <br />designation; however, there are certain times when they <br />recommend that property be rezoned which would put it in <br />non-conformance with the Comp Plan because it is staff's <br />opinion that it would be better for the use to cease <br />eventually. In this case, since one of the parcels was <br />considered as commercial and staff did not realize that more <br />than.one parcel had been joined together through a site <br />plan, their recommendation would have been to have the whole <br />property retain its commercial designation. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised the Board that based on <br />Director Keating's answer, there is reason that they have <br />new evidence to qualify for a new hearing, but Director <br />Keating interjected that the Plot Plan commercial use of .8 <br />acres had been discussed at the meeting of September 5th. <br />Attorney Brandenburg then restated his original <br />recommendation that the Commissioners ought not to <br />reconsider this matter. <br />72 <br />SEP 19 1984 BOOK 58 Fr: -A,95 <br />J <br />