Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 r,� 259 <br />development plan for the area that caused the proposed <br />boundaries. <br />Chief Planner Shearer agreed that originally the nodes were <br />to be flexible, but since 1984, the county has treated them as <br />having fixed boundaries. He pointed out, however, that they <br />always can be enlarged. At this particular node, there hasn't <br />been any development since 1982 and no specific request has been <br />made regarding setting the boundaries. <br />Mr. Richey asked if in setting boundaries for nodes, we are <br />not, in effect, doing strip zoning, but Planner Shearer explained <br />that the concept of the node was to reduce the potential for <br />strip development. - <br />Mr. Richey advised that his family owns a 20 acre piece of <br />property on both sides of U.S.1, and, therefore, they are left <br />with a triangular piece that actually is unusable. <br />Planner Shearer noted that when staff looked at this node, <br />it showed that little triangular piece as a separate owner. <br />Commissioner Bird did not feel there is anything magic about <br />limiting this node to 10 acres forever and there will be an <br />opportunity to enlarge it, especially in a case such as this <br />where part of the property already is in the node. <br />Leonard Hatala informed the Board that he owns the piece of <br />property to the south of the node zoned C -1A, and he wished to <br />know if that still will be classified as C -1A. <br />Chief Planner Shearer advised that property has an existing <br />commercial use which would be grandfathered in, and in the <br />conversion it would go to CL which 'is -very similar. <br />13 <br />No one further wished to be heard. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed <br />the public hearing.. <br />18 <br />