My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/1/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
9/1/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:19 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:53:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/01/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
was adopted in 1981, no allowance was made for this property. In <br />1986 ,the property was actually rezoned from its commercial <br />category through a conversion procedure with no direct notice to <br />property owner. <br />JAttorney Henderson continued that his client is looking for <br />a way to get the zoning back, and one way is to qualify for <br />neighborhood commercial, but this property is automatically <br />disqualified because there is a node across the street on the <br />north est corner, and also further west are the boundaries of the <br />1-95 Rhode. Attorney Henderson believed the one mile separation <br />rule became a problem early on because the major intersections on <br />SR60 are all about a mile apart with the result that if develop- <br />ment is allowed on one corner of an intersection, it automat- <br />ically disqualifies the next intersection. If staff were to use <br />existing criteria and plot out where any neighborhood nodes could <br />be located now, Attorney Henderson believed that, if the other <br />quadrant did not already have a node, this would be the only <br />location that could qualify. <br />(Chairman Scurlock noted that Mr. Henderson is arguing that <br />according to Mr. Groth's original plan, they were planning for <br />this commercial all along and it was taken away from them; <br />however, that same plan also said this beautiful entrance would <br />be maintained forever as a nature trail, and that has been taken <br />away. <br />Commissioner Eggert pointed out that a deviation of about <br />20% has been allowed from the one mile separation provision, and <br />Chairman Scurlock further pointed out that the piece in question, <br />which they wish to use as commercial, comes in very close <br />proximity to some of the mobile homes, and this differentiates it <br />from the other quadrants of the intersection. <br />Attorney Henderson believed this may be the only intersec- <br />tionlwith two neighborhood commercial nodes at the same intersec- <br />tion; and he has wondered why they didn't disqualify each other. <br />Perhaps the separation distance wasn't in place at that time. <br />15 BOOK 6 PACE <br />x.97 <br />SEP <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.