Laserfiche WebLink
Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge stated she was unable to support the <br />motion and recalled her PZC role in the configuration of these commercial node areas. She <br />recalled concern about the traffic flow and other impacts which were the reasons for keeping <br />the node close to the intersection and not letting it expand along the roadway. She felt the <br />present commercial area is sufficient and there is an opportunity for the developer to utilize <br />that area as is. She agreed that Article 6 gave a very compelling argument against this <br />rezoning and was pleased to see it. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn announced that Chairman Adams had left the meeting and <br />assumed the chair. She feared there was going to be a tie vote and asked the Commissioners <br />if they wished to table the matter to a future date when Chairman Adams could be present. <br />Acting County Attorney O'Brien stated the Board had a quorum and could act if they <br />chose to do so. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion <br />failed 2-2 (Vice Chairman Ginn & Commissioner Tippin in <br />favor; Commissioners Macht and Stanbridge opposed). <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY <br />Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, <br />Chairman Adams absent) agreed to postpone a final decision <br />due to the absence of Chairman Adams and bring the matter <br />back at their next meeting on July 11, 2000. <br />June 20, 2000 <br />59 <br />BOOK WAGE u <br />