My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/5/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
12/5/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:00:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/05/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Shearer noted that this matter came before the Planning <br />& Zoning Commission in spring of 1983 and was tabled indefinitely <br />at that time. This fall the owners submitted a new application <br />and the analysis was pretty much the same as before. The <br />Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval. At their next <br />meeting on November 8th, the property immediately to the west was <br />considered for rezoning, but they denied that because they felt <br />it was not in the node and you have to draw the line somewhere. <br />The rezoning that was denied has been appealed. Staff does <br />recommend approval of the subject request. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing <br />Guy and Willy Poteat, who own the acreage to the west which is <br />being denied. The Poteats really have no objection in principle <br />to what Mr. Wilson is requesting for his property, but he <br />believed the nodal concept is on a first come, first served <br />basis; the Poteats' request was submitted the same day and they <br />are being told there is nothing left. Attorney O'Haire noted <br />that there are 49 acres of in -fill in this node for which nothing <br />has been requested, and he would ask that the subject rezoning <br />not be granted at his client's expense and that the in -fill be <br />reduced to provide his clients what they reasonably should be <br />entitled to. <br />Attorney B. T. Cooksey next appeared representing Art Wilson <br />and Maple Leaf Properties, Inc. He felt the highest and best use <br />of the subject property is commercial. There is sufficient land, <br />and it is located in the node. All of the.factors required in <br />the Land Use Plan are present, and this was recommended both by <br />the County staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission. They, <br />therefore, request the Board approve the rezoning to C-1. <br />Commissioner Bird felt the Board will have to deal with Mr. <br />Poteat's appeal as it comes, but noted there wasn't any question <br />in his mind when we set up this node, that we would start with <br />21 <br />DEC s 1984 Boor 59 FACE 99 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.