Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/14/1986Tuesday, January 14, 1986 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on January 14, 1986, at 7:15 o'clock p.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that it is the first of two public hearings on the conversion of certain zoning districts, and final action is not anticipated. After the input tonight, the Board will give staff some direction so we can have a final document at the next public hearing. The hour of 7:15 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the /� Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1171,- 7, /o/ 7 j`�� I Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver. hsement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any. person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver. t'sement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed beforme t s — ay � sinoss M � ( �nager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,'Flori �� � 4 1986 Bou 63 nr� L 2126 �2. BOOK 63 Fn, -L 227 i . 1•pw aKll MR" 3 t ;,f t 4 ♦ f` # ly 14 NOTICE.OF ZONING CHANGE'.'.-.,rrt. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to rezone .most of the agriculturally, commercially, industrially and part of the residentially - zoned property in the unincorporated part of tie County within the area shown in the map in this advertisement.' ..h A public hearing on the rezoning will be held on Tuesday, January 14, 1986, at . 7:15 p.m., in the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. This action will affect most of the agriculturally, commercially, and industrially - zoned properties in the unincorporated area of Indian River County. It will convert existing zoning designations to the new zoning districts adopted in January and July of 1985: In some cases, this may effect setbacks, minimum lot size requirements,. or other zoning regulations applicable to specific property in the County. In addition, this action will change the* permitted uses on some properties, .` which are not currently zoned in conformance with the County's Comprehensive? Land Use Plan If any questions arise regarding this proposed action, please contact the Planning Department at 567-8000, ext. 237. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY'S ZONING ATLAS BY CONVERTING THE ZONING DISTRICTS DEPICTED ON THE ATLAS TO NEW DISTRICTS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, IN ACCORDANCE .WITH THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN; PROVIDING' FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE #` CONVERSION TABLE; REPEALING SECTION 4, A, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; SECTION 18, B-1, PLANNED .BUSINESS DISTRICT; SECTION 18.1, MED, MEDICAL DISTRICT; SECTION 19, CA A, RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 20, C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 20.1, C-2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 21, LM -1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT; AND SECTION 22, M-1, RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision .which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ..r. • By: -s- Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman 2 The following Zoning District List was handed out, and Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation: ZONING DISTRICTS 1. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS a. A-1: Agricultural District 2. RURAL TRANSITION AREA DISTRICTS a. RFD: Rural Fringe Development District b. RS -1: Single -Family Residential District 3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS a. RS -3: Single -Family Residential District RS -6: Single -Family Residential District b. RT -6: Two -Family Residential District c. RM -3: Multiple -Family Residential District RM -4: Multiple -Family Residential District RM -6: Multiple -Family Residential District d. RM -8: Multiple -Family Residential District RM -10: Multiple -Family Residential District RM -14: Multiple -Family Residential District e. RMH-6: Mobile Home Residential District RMH-8: Mobile Home Residential District f. R-BCID Blue Cypress Improvement District 4. COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS a. B-1: Planned Business District C-lA: Restricted Commercial District C-1: Commercial District C-2: Heavy Commercial District CRVP: Commerical Recreational Vehicle Park District 5. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS a. LM -1: Light Manufacturing District M-1: Restricted Industrial District 6. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT a. MP: Marine Park District PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS 1. COMMERCIAL a. OCR: Office, Commercial & Residential District b. MED: Medical District c. CN: Neighborhood Commercial District d. CL: Limited Commercial District e. CG: General Commercial District f. CH: Heavy Commercial District 2. INDUSTRIAL a. IL: Light Industrial District b. IG: General Industrial District 3 JAN 14 P9,86 BOCK 63 PnL228 JAN 14 1986 63 P,, E 229 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 6, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: - NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING .. Robert . Keata. g,( CP CONVERSION TABLE Planning & Developm nt Director FROM: �s REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP NonResidential Conversion Chi ref, Tong -Range P1 anni na Tah1 PZRTCH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of January 14, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department has prepared an existing nonresidential zoning districts Zoning Atlas to the new nonresidential by the Board of County Commissioners addition, this ordinance repeals the zoning districts which will no longer ap ordinance to convert the depicted on the County's zoning districts adopted on July 24, 1985. In sight old nonresidential )ear on the zoning atlas. On November 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Planning Department has done a detailed analysis of the County's Zoning Atlas and prepared the conversion table to convert the old zoning districts to the new zoning districts based on the existing zoning, the existing land use pattern, and the Comprehensive Plan. All of the proposed changes are consis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted node boundaries. A list of exceptions to the conversion table is included to provide appropriate zoning for parcels which may not be rezoned in accordance with the land use plan but are otherwise in confor- mance with the Comprehensive Plana This includes properties which have commercial zoning, and existing commercial uses, but have a residential land use designation on the land use map. These properties are considered in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan based on the following provision in the Land Use Element: It is not the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to create nonconforming uses by the adoption of this Plan. All lawful, conforming uses in existence at the date of Plan adoption shall be considered consistent with the Plan. In addition, this proposed ordinance will realign zoning district boundaries in areas where there are a large number of zoning districts to reduce the number of districts. For example, a half mile section of State Road 60 in the I-95/State Road 60 node area contains five different zoning districts. Under the proposed zoning conversion ordinance, all of these properties would be zoned CG, General Commercial District. If this ordinance is adopted, all zoning in the unincorporated part of the County will be in conformance with the Comprehensive 4 Plan. In compiling the conversion table and the list of exceptions, the staff has attempted to reduce the number of nonconforming uses and to not create any new nonconforming uses. However, at least one new nonconforming use will be created. By changing the RS -6 zoning in the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node to CL, one single-family residence will become a nonconforming use. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's" recommendation, staff recommends approval of the zoning conversion ordinance. Chairman Scurlock reported that he had received a call from Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, in regard to three blocks in Oslo which it was indicated should remain industrial. He wished to know if that had been incorporated in the conversion. Planner Shearer confirmed that it had been a major concern that an area in Oslo should be light industrial rather than heavy commercial, and this has been taken care of. The predominant land use is heavy commercial, and it was felt light industrial zoning (IL) would be more appropriate for the entire area. Chairman Scurlock commented that the contemplated conversion is a very comprehensive approach, and he wished to know if something should slip by and be overlooked, how this could be rectified in the future. Planner Shearer advised that this is similar to the process for the residential conversion which was carried out last April, and if something should happen to fall through the cracks, staff would initiate corrective action so those concerned would not have to bear that expense. Chairman Scurlock asked about the individual cases that may be adversely affected by the conversions, and Planner Shearer advised that they have a list of those who have called. Obviously not everyone will be happy with the conversion, but most appear to be so far. He did believe that most realized this would be happening eventually. Planner Shearer wished to note that in the process of setting this up, staff proposed that some zoning on the north 5 JAN 14 1986 8000 6 Parc 230 JAN 14 1966 j Boa 63 231 side of North Gifford road was to be reclassified from M-1 Restricted Industrial to Light Industrial. They have been informed since that there are one or two salvage yards in the area that would become non -conforming, and it may be necessary to' look at this again. Commissioner Bird wished to know whether the permitted uses remain basically the same when converting from one designation to another. Planner Shearer confirmed that they generally do, i.e., the uses in C-1 are almost identical to C -G, and in fact, the new designation is usually less restrictive in most respects. Commissioner Bird asked whether the junkyards referred to in Gifford could continue to operate in their present form, and Planner Shearer clarified that they could continue to operate indefinitely, but it would prevent them from expanding their use. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the method of notifica- tion followed re the zoning conversions, and Planner Shearer explained that state statutes provide that if you rezone more than 50 of a county, the only notification required is a quarter page advertisement in Section A of a local newspaper. Since this conversion encompassed more than 400 square miles of the county, that is all that was done. This same procedure was followed for the residential zoning conversion in April. Commissioner Wodtke felt when talking about the nodal concept recently, the Board indicated we wanted to have specific notification. Planner Shearer believed we are dealing with about 50,000 parcels tonight, and Commissioner Lyons felt a node is a very limited area where in this case we are considering most of the county. Planner Shearer further noted that the Press Journal has been cooperative and done several articles to let people know this was going on. 6 M M - Nancy Offutt, liaison with the Board of Realtors and Chamber of Commerce informed the Board that repeated notices of these hearings were put in the newsletters that went to the 1,400 members of the Chamber of Commerce and to the Board of Realtors. Chairman Scurlock expressed the Board's appreciation. Chairman Scurlock continued to discuss our ability to correct something that has fallen through the cracks, and Commis- sioner Wodtke hoped that Attorney Vitunac could look at the ordinance and provide us with some automatic way to handle such problems. Attorney Vitunac agreed that he can work on this with the Planning staff but did not know of any way to avoid the restrictions of state law. Commissioner Bird believed it has been indicated by the Commission that anything of this nature will be dealt with as quickly and efficient as possible, and it was generally agreed such situations will be dealt with as priority items. Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone present wished to be heard. William Bieschke, real estate broker, came before the Board representing the owners of 74 acres on the northeast corner of Ranch Road and Oslo Road. He noted that he and Attorney Bogosian appeared before the Board at an earlier meeting in regard to this same acreage and asked the Commission to include it in the Commercial/Industrial node. It was the consensus of the Commis- sion at that time to refer this back to the Planning Commission to see if it couldn't be placed in that node, and that is what he is asking tonight. Mr. Bieschke emphasized that this area is changing; there is the proposed extension of 1-95, plus the four laning proposed on Oslo Road, and also a change was made across the street for the truss plant. Chairman Scurlock asked if the Planning & Zoning Commission has taken a look at the possibility of expanding the node to include this 74 acres, but Commissioner Lyons believed this 7 BOOK 63 pn- 2:32 JAN 14 1966 L_ - cl BOOK &J . PAGE 203 involves a question of rezoning property to conform with the Plan and should not be before us tonight. Planner Shearer confirmed that currently the majority of property under discussion is zoned Agricultural; there is a part of it zoned commercial which abuts Oslo Road; however, the*Land Use designation is Agricultural. Planning & Development Director Keating noted that this would involve a Comprehensive Plan amendment because if this property were included, it would be necessary either to eliminate - some -other that -is in the node or to expand the node. Planner Shearer further pointed out that the boundaries of the node have been set by ordinance and would have to be amended. He advised that staff is going to be looking at this node when they look at the Comprehensive Plan amendments, and they will.be accepting applications next month. Chairman Scurlock believed the answer is that we are still considering it, but it is not part of tonight's process. Mr. Beischke stated that he just wanted to make sure they could come back again about this and that it was not set in concrete. Mike Starckx, 1016 38th Avenue, came before the Board re his salvage business which is on the north side of North Gifford Road and has been established since 1967. He informed the Board that there are five salvage yards on the south side of North Gifford Road and three on the north side which abut each other. There are no houses between them, but there are some on the outer fringes. Mr. Starckx continued that the way Mr. Shearer explained it, his five competitors across the street could put in something such as an aluminum smelter which requires heavy industrial land, if they had all the environmental permits, and he could not do so although he has planned to. He realized that there is a lot of heavy industrial property on North Gifford Road that is not developed in salvage yards that the county feels should be rezoned, and he would go along with that, but not as 8 far as affecting an existing business. Mr. Starckx was not concerned about expanding as all his property is developed as a salvage yard now, but he was concerned with the environmental requirements which are always changing, and the fact that, if he wanted to make an improvement to comply with those requirements, he now could not do so. Therefore, he felt the Commission, in effect, is giving the people across the street carte blanche and handicapping him. Discussion ensued as to whether Mr. Starckx would be allowed to make improvements to meet environmental restrictions. Director Keating did believe he would be allowed to because he felt that would be a lessening of the degree of the non- conformity, but that would be a judgment call. He clarified that staff's intent was not to take several businesses and make them non -conforming; the basic intent was to give the lowest accept- able zoning to existing businesses. Staff did not realize there were three salvage yards up there like this; so, they would like to take another look. Commissioner Wodtke personally felt we should treat all the salvage yards the same and that it would be unfair to do it any other way. Chairman Scurlock believed additional requirements for environmental concerns will arise and will force Mr. Starckx to make some changes, and he certainly should be able to do that. In further. discussion, it was noted that the County is lucky to have these salvage yards and over the years never has had a complaint about them. Mr. Starckx commented that just last year among all the eight salvage yards, they processed over 6,000 cars out of this county for resmelting. He stated he would appreciate the Board's consideration on this matter. r Commissioner Bird, speaking as Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, noted that they need to have the operators 9 JAS 14 W6 soQ 63P,lic 234 JAN 14 1986 63 FA, -c 2:35 whose fences back up to the Gifford Park do whatever they can to improve the appearance of those fences. Mr. Starckx advised that he has completely hidden his salvage operation. Commissioner Lyons believed we have other safeguards re the neighboring residential areas, and Director Keating confirmed that there are sufficient safeguards. Bob White, 608 Albatross Lane, informed the Board that he owns a small piece of property, 150' bordering east on U.S.1 (Tropicana Homesites, Lots 1,2,3,4 & 5). He bought this property as an investment in 1982 in good faith as C -1A and now finds out that he can't use it. He clarified that this property is north of Wabasso approximately across from Gator Lumber in Wabasso and south of Pelican Point. Mr. White informed the Board that he has been given varying and confusing information about his property, and now it seems he is presently under review for LD -2. He was not happy with the idea of being required to develop property located on U.S.1 as residential, especially with the prospect of having children so near a major highway. Mr. White emphasized that he would like very much to know just what he can do with his property and what, if anything, he can pull a building permit for. Planner Shearer confirmed that this property is zoned C -1A and probably has been since 1957. In 1982 the Land Use Plan designated this as LD -2, which is low density residential, and from that point on, it is true that the property could not be used for anything until either the zoning was changed to residential or the Land Use Plan was changed to commercial. Tonight it is proposed to change the zoning to RM -6, which is consistent with the land use designation. When the proposed ordinance is adopted, Mr. White would be able to get a building permit for a house or could come in and get a site plan approved for a duplex, depending on how much land he has. 10 Mr. White stated that he has five lots, but reiterated that he does not want to put residential on U.S.1, which would be dangerous for children. He felt U.S.1 should be commercial. Chairman Scurlock explained that the Commission is trying to avoid strip commercial, and Commissioner Bird emphasized that in our county we have about 26 miles of U.S.1 frontage and we are not just picking on Mr. White. At one time this was all commercial, but this Commission, as well as previous Commissions, felt it is better planning to cluster the zoning. Unfortunately Mr. White's property falls in between where some of these clusters are. Mary Jean Todd, Church Street, Wabasso, informed the Board that she owns three lots on 50th Avenue that will be changed to limited commercial. She stated that they own a home there which is ideal for a nursing home and have a couple who are going to start with a day care center for the elderly there and eventually work into a nursing home situation. Half of their property is light commercial, and the back half is single family dwelling, and Mrs. Todd wished to know when staff is going to start studying the plans for Wabasso. Planner Shearer advised that they are doing the study on Roseland now and starting Gifford, and Wabasso will be next. Mrs. Todd inquired if her property will go commercial or whether she should ask for a variance, and Planner Shearer stated that she couldn't get a variance; however, in the interim, she could petition for a rezoning. This is a situation where for years the properties to the west have been zoned single family and those to the east commercial. In further discussion, it was noted that Mrs. Todd should either submit a rezoning request or wait until we get the small area plan completed. Planner Shearer advised that staff hopes to have all the small area plans completed by October of this year. 11 JAN 14 1986 Boor, 63 Fa,cE 236 L-7 _r_ JAN 141986 BOOK 63 PACE237 Lucinda Eddy, Sable Oak Drive, informed the Board that her property is on U.S.1 in Wabasso north of Reflections and south of River Run. She stated that it used to be zoned for commercial and they changed it to RM -6; and then she went back and was told they were rezoning it to C -1A. Mrs. Eddy stated that she really just wanted 300' commercial, but now for some reason they went back and marked it RM -6 again. She did not think it is right for her neighbors to have RM -8 when she has RM -6 and she was there first. - Planner Shearer noted that this is kind of a unique situa- tion. River Run to the north and Reflections on the River to the south both have 8 units to the acre, and the reason is that they had their zoning in place and site plans submitted or approved before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982. Mrs. Eddy did not; so, her zoning is RM -6. Commissioner Bird asked if Mrs. Eddy has any commercial left, and Planner Shearer explained that her property for a depth of 600' has been C -1A for years. There was a similar situation with Reflections and River Run, but River Run got theirs rezoned to 8 units per acre multiple family, and Reflections also had most of their rezoned to 8 units per acre. In 1982, the Land Use Plan designated Mrs. Eddy's property as LD -2 (up to 6 units per acre), and staff is proposing that her zoning be RM -6 to be consistent with the LD -2 designation. Commissioner Bird asked if Reflections has some commercially zoned property and was informed that a large part of their frontage is commercial; their property that borders Mrs. Eddy is zoned multiple family. Question arose as to how Reflections got the commercial, and Planner Shearer advised that their commercial was considered a neighborhood node; this was more than three years ago when neighborhood nodes could have up to eight acres, and now they are allowed only three. 12 Discussion continued regarding Mrs. Eddy's unique situation, and Mrs. Eddy pointed out that River Run has put their sewer plant up next to her property. She noted that she was not so much concerned about the RM -8 as having some commercial. Commissioner Lyons asked if all three acres in the neighbor- hood node are being used for commercial, and Director Keating advised a site plan has just recently been obtained for it. Discussion ensued at length re the size of neighborhood nodes being reduced over the years, and the fact that Mrs. Eddy never submitted a site plan and so couldn't be grandfathered in. Commissioner Lyons felt the key is that everything depends on timing. If Mrs. Eddy had had a site plan submitted when the others did, she could have had this also. But she didn't; she waited; and things change. The Board members continued to stress that they would like to be sympathetic, but they could not find any legal way to address Mrs. Eddy's request. Planner Shearer felt the only way to accomplish this would be to amend the Land Use Plan and put in a general commercial node of about ten acres or change the Land Use designation to MD -1 for Mrs. Eddy's property, which would be a spot desi.gnation. Chairman Scurlock noted that nothing can be done about this tonight in any event, and asked that staff keep looking into it. Laverne Garbers, 335 17th Ave., informed the Board that he owns ten acres on Oslo Road between Tippin's Nursery and the trailer park. Some time ago he came up with a subdivision plan to put a road down the center of it; however, the front part was zoned commercial and the back part residential, and the plan was not approved because they did not want traffic from residential going through the commercial area. Mr. Garbers noted that he was told he could have his property rezoned to 3 units per acre, but he did not feel the surrounding environment, with a trailer park on one side of his property at 6 units per acre and Tippin's 13 JAN 14 1986 BOOK 63 P,,GE 238 JAN 14 1986 BOOK 3 P,;E 239 commercial on the other side, would make it feasible to build $70,000 homes. Director Keating explained that this is the property next to the trailer park on which the Board has twice considered revok- ing the site plan approval. Mr. Garbers has a very unusual situation, and staff tried to work with him on it but could not recommend approval of his plan. Planner Shearer noted that Mr. Garbers' property is in an MXD area. He then reviewed the surrounding area, noting that there is strip commercial on Oslo Road on the north side. West of Mr. Garbers is Tippin's Nursery, which is commercial and will stay commercial; then after Mr. Garbers' property is the trailer park and immediately east of Marie Simmons' property is the Oslo Road/27th Avenue node. There are three properties which would separate that Commercial and MXD from the node, and what staff is proposing, in order to avoid strip commercial, is that the Garbers and Simmons properties both be rezoned RM -3 multiple. Planner Shearer reported that the owners of the trailer park which is in between Mr. Garbers and Marie Simmons have just recently indicated they would be willing to have their zoning changed however their neighbors are treated. Administrator Wright inquired if this means they would abandon the trailer park, and Planner Shearer advised they can't see spending the money if their site plan might be revoked. Commissioner Bird asked since these parcels are sandwiched in between the commercial node and another commercial use, why we wouldn't go with a higher density than RM -3. Planner Shearer stated that staff would like to go with 6 units per acre. The problem is that Marie Simmons' property is LD -1, which is only 3 units per acre, and the other two prop- erties are in an MXD which has a maximum of 3 units per acre. He believed what staff needs to look at is changing the Land Use designation for those three properties. 14 Commissioner Bird inquired about expanding the MXD to include Marie Simmons, and Planner Shearer felt what could be done is expand the MXD to include her property and then change the density in that MXD to 6 upa. This would take the MXD up to the node at 6 units per acre on the north side only. Mr. Garbers wished to know if the 6 units per acre would apply to his entire property which runs 1320' deep. Planner Shearer explained that the MXD is only 600' deep and that is what staff is looking at, i.e., the property to a depth 600' back from Oslo Road would go to 6 units per acre, and back of that staff would propose that it be made consistent with the other subdivisions in that area. Mr. Garbers agreed that he would go along with that. Chairman Scurlock explained that this cannot be done tonight, but staff will be directed to work with Mr. Garbers on this, and it will be county -initiated. Tony Esposito, one•of the owners of North Gifford Road Salvage, advised that they bought two houses that were abutting their salvage yard strictly because of the zoning and wanted to know if it is going to be the same or changed. He explained that the property referred to is south of North Gifford Road, basically on 45th Avenue. Planner Shearer advised that if the property is M-1 now, it will probably go to IG, which is General Industrial, but he would have to verify the location of the property and the present zoning to make sure. Mr. Esposito wished to know if that would be up zoning or down zoning, and Planner.Shearer clarified that it would be staying about the same. No one further wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. 15 MOK 63 �n-L 240 JAN 14 1986 500K 3 Fa -E 241 Chairman Scurlock announced that the second public hearing will be held on January 29th at 7:15 o'clock P.M. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 8:3.0.olclock P.M. ATTEST: --- Clerk 16 G Chairman