3/3/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A� j BOOK 9 f'tq;E 491 Commissioner Eggert questioned if this still is enough acreage and also whether we should be so set in our boundaries, and Commissioner Wheeler also questioned the advantages of having fixed lines rather than flexible, he believed this can lead to holding of land for speculation rather than development. Chief Planner Shearer agreed there are both advantages and disadvantages, but pointed out that the current Comprehensive Plan states that the Board of County Commissioners will adopt boundaries for all of the nodes, and once those boundaries are set, everyone in the node will be rezoned commercially. Commissioner Wheeler noted that prior to 1984, there was some flexibility. Chairman Scurlock explained that it was argued that the flexibility created more problems than otherwise because without boundaries people could not determine whether they were in a node or not, and we were bombarded with requests from people who wished to know exactly what their property was. There is a lot of history behind this. Commissioner Eggert noted that she will stand on the record that she disagreed with a lot of the history. She felt her problem is that until that 1-95 interchange goes in, nothing will happen there except a lot of land speculation. Commissioner Wheeler believed there is a good deal of vacant land around this node that is just as suitable for industrial as what is marked out. Planning Director Keating pointed out that even though you have set boundaries, that does not prevent advertising an ordinance to change them again. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney John Sutherland informed the Board that he and some others own a small portion of land in this vicinity, and in spite of what the Planning Department has said with such authority, he felt we need to step back and take another look at the boundaries. Attorney Sutherland referred to the map presented 36