My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/23/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
2/23/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:52 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:45:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/23/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
u•e c, <br />Y0rk09 <br />re: Proposed expansion of the Riverside Church Assembly of God, <br />AA -93-02-015 <br />Dear Sirs: <br />I note that after their meeting of 3anuary'14, 1993► the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission stated t::•ay intend to recommend <br />approval of the expansion over the nearest neighbors objections. <br />My own objection to the placement c` a "modular" structure, <br />in full view of the surrounding homes, is that it is not in <br />keeping with the residential atmosphere of the current -neighbor- <br />hood adjacent to the Church property. <br />In the minutes of the January 14, 1993 meeting, I see no <br />response to the complaint made by Mr. Denton that his back- <br />yard had been turned into a bog by the Church's new septic <br />system.. Will increased population/use/traffic exacerbate the <br />situation? <br />The Church's Pastor Foster stated that the trailer -like <br />structures were temporary, to fill a need until the "master <br />site plan" is completed. Why is -"there no stated plan -with <br />dates for their. -removal? <br />The exception requested is to allow the Church to do <br />something which the original zoning excluded. The original <br />zoning was the .plan by which I and others invested our hard <br />earned money with full knowledge that our investment was protected <br />by lair. Can the Board give some indicat`-on uhy the Church is <br />being considered for such an exception o-:er the objections of <br />the most effected parties -the neighbors? Why should the <br />Church be granted something which will effect others esthetically <br />and economically (structures such as these nearby do not enhance <br />the value of the neighborhood)? - <br />If the Church requires more room, they should seek <br />property which does not have established restrictions put in <br />place to maintain the value of its neigh:orhood. <br />The Board' should not grant the exce:tion and should not <br />override the originally conceived Flan. <br />property at 839 Robin Lane v _ry t= ::1}. yours <br />cc: Mr -Bob Denton �'_ S ► ;r,J�t •.' .'�_ ►\i► �` ; �.'��;�t'?,'lLiI1'l� <br />Pr rosino <br />33 <br />FEB 231993 BOOK 8-8 FacE 910 <br />I <br />�; <br />pltorney <br />�, <br />Ei <br />^� <br />Pcr;onnel <br />pil'Alc works <br />o��F4 <br />���ns; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.