12/6/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EMI that is why we asked staff to look at OCR. We didn't tell them they had to do anything other than just look at it. Commissioner Eggert commented that in her many years of working with the Planning Department, she has never known them to do anything just to appease either the Planning & Zoning Commission or this Commission. Commissioner Bird disagreed with the remark that the devel- oper is trying to get something for his property. He pointed out that the developer is trying to keep something he has had for many years, and there is quite a difference. Attorney Barkett next addressed the second test for justify- ing a rezoning, noting that the first test, which is whether or not there has been a change in the community that has affected this property, has been proven. The second test is whether an error was made in the last rezoning of the property, and he believed that is definitely the case. The developer originally represented that if this were allowed to stay commercial, they would put up something elegant like the Village Shoppes, and their attorney, Gordon Johnston came before the Board and made many representations about establishing an attractive neighbor- hood type commercial area and also assured the Board that they would not develop the area of the gardens, trees, etc., into total commercial. He, therefore, argued that the Board should go back to what should have been done in the first place and put in a less intense use that still would allow profitable develop- ment. Chairman Scurlock agreed that the Board's original decision to expand the commercial acreage was based on Mr. Johnston's representations. Attorney Robin Lloyd next came before the Board on behalf of Vista Royale Gardens Property Owners Association. He explained that they did not appeal the ruling simply because they knew that the Vista Civic Association was doing so. He stressed that a fact that seems to have been overlooked is that Vista Gardens 33 POOK 75 PAGE 284