My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/3/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
3/3/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:17 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:45:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/03/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
for the -zoning, and noted that it shows -a two tract area north of <br />Oslo Road up to 5th`Street SW, but the proposed node boundaries <br />north of Oslo take in only half a tract in.distance. Attorney <br />Sutherland felt if it is important enough to set up an area that, <br />from a planning standpoint, sometime in the future is deemed to <br />be the appropriate place for certain development such as <br />commercial and industrial, then serious thought should be given <br />to preventing residential development from coming into the <br />adjacent area. He, therefore, felt the size of the node should <br />be expanded to block out residential development since once <br />people live there, they have an entirely different view of what <br />should be done than what you have planned to do; it is never a <br />problem to downzone something, but it is very difficult to raise <br />it to industrial. Attorney Sutherland continued to urge holding <br />residential development from the north and stated that the <br />development is not going to come from the south since nobody is <br />going to put a residence next to a county dump. He further noted <br />that if you have a very restricted node, then those within that <br />area can demand a large amount of money for their property, and <br />we need to have some area available in the county to encourage <br />businesses to come in. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed we expanded the 1-95/SR60 node <br />for those very reasons. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing <br />the Poitras family trust on the north side of Oslo Road. He <br />noted that he has been through all the various workshops, etc., <br />and just would request that the Board not "tinker" with the <br />Poitras property this morning. <br />It was determined that nobody further wished to be heard, <br />and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that to him the whole node out there <br />is so premature that it just relates to the degree of premature- <br />ness, and he did not have any strong feelings about expanding it <br />or not to take in the property discussed by Attorney Sutherland. <br />37 <br />c -, BOOK � ;'�1G� ��� <br />�� � rel <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.