Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 5 1905 <br />- <br />BOOK 61 89 <br />facility. He felt this is a project with merit, but it seems <br />they may be disqualified simply by what seems to be an arbitrary <br />rule. They would argue that it would make more sense to measure <br />the intervening distance along the one side of the road, especi- <br />ally on a road such as SR 60; and Attorney Henderson also felt <br />the boundary of the major node must be determined. <br />Commissioner Bird believed that as the County grows, we may <br />violate these boundaries anyway as these node may have to be <br />expanded in the future. <br />Chairman Lyons noted that we seem to be hearing an appeal <br />that is scheduled for the next Commission meeting. He reported <br />that he will, in the future, be a resident of the proposed <br />facility, and although it is a non-profit facility and he will <br />not profit from it in any way, he wondered if he might possibly <br />have a conflict of interest and should not hear it or vote on it. <br />Attorney Brandenburg assured the Chairman that this did not <br />represent a conflict of interest, but in any event, the Board <br />should not hear the appeal today. <br />Attorney Henderson assured the Board that he did not intend <br />to appeal this matter now; he simply wanted to make a few points. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have, in a.11 cases, <br />established these nodal boundaries, and Attorney Brandenburg <br />stated that we have not, and for neighborhood nodes won't do so <br />until they come up on a case by case basis in the future. <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired if we are saying that there <br />is no node at this time at the intersection where the bank is? <br />Planner Shearer explained this 1-95 node boundary has not <br />been set by ordinance as has been done in two other cases; <br />staff, however, used that boundary for two reasons. When the <br />First Bankers' property was rezoned, there is mention in the <br />Minutes by the Planning staff that they were recommending <br />approval of that rezoning based on their finding that that <br />property was located in the 1-95/SR ¢0 node. Since then, in <br />December of 1984, the Board considered rezoning some property <br />48 <br />