7/8/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U L 0,8 1992 L BOOK 86 designation would stay in effect would be, in essence, changing the land use plan. To change the land use plan, you have to go through the procedures. Commissioner Bird noted that the letter really doesn't say that we are retaining the RS -1 zoning; it just says that we are applying RS -1 standards to the property. Director Keating repeated that the appropriate process would be to pursue a land use amendment, and Mr. Schlitt repeated that he would have a hardship with this property if he is not allowed to subdivide it. Director Keating stated that he cannot subdivide his remaining property. The subject property has AG -1 land use designation; the split has occurred; and the zoning has to be made consistent with the land use designation. Mr. Schlitt asked if anyone present could tell him what water costs would be involved if he was not allowed to retain his RS -1. Attorney Vitunac explained the formula used in water assessments is based on square footage, not on frontage. Utilities does not look at zoning; it looks at square footage because utilities are there for the very long run. The lines will be in the ground and providing a present benefit and that is what they assess on. Chairman Eggert wanted to be sure that someone is here from Utilities at the second public hearing on these rezonings. Administrator Chandler assured Mr. Schlitt that 'he would be given specific figures on what he would be assessed prior to the next public hearing on July 21, 1992. Commissioner Bird felt that could be done with regard to utilities, but not with the paving of the road. Chairman Eggert advised Mr. Schlitt to be at the final public hearing on Monday, July 21, 1992 at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Rod Fields, attorney representing the Latt Maxcy Corporation which owns property in Sections 22, 26, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 36 of Township 37 South and Range 35 East, objected to the rezoning as all of the above listed property is currently zoned 1 unit per 5 acres and the rezoning will take it to 1 unit per 20 acres. As he understands it, the County has been directed by the State to contain urban sprawl and cut back on the drain on the resources to the county. As the plan was explained here tonight, most of the land affected is agricultural with 1 unit per 5 acres being the current zoning. Attorney Fields felt that the County is not expending any resources at this point with 1 unit per 5 acres. He stressed that it could not be developed into a subdivision either. Attorney Fields felt the Maxcy property is being devalued by the 42