Laserfiche WebLink
50 <br /> <br /> In addition to the information required by Section 9.2-A, the following <br />information shall be supplied as part of the application: <br /> <br />(1) A Site Plan showing the lot and all existing and proposed buildings <br />thereon. <br /> <br />(2) Proposed Screening. <br /> <br />B. Standards of Evaluation <br /> <br /> The following specific standards shall be used in deciding an application <br />for approval of this class of use: <br /> <br />(1) Total building space shall not exceed three thousand five hundred <br />(3,500) square feet gross. <br /> <br />(2) Facility must be designed and business conducted such that food- <br />fuel sales constitutes the majority of income generated. <br /> <br />(3) Minor repair of motor vehicles may be permitted as long as all <br />such operations are conducted within a building. <br /> <br />(4) Restaurant operations shall be conducted as an accessory use and <br />wholly within a building. <br /> <br /> No one spoke either for or against this proposed amendment. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Nash, seconded by Commissioner Cook and <br />unanimously carried, the Board adopted Amendment 5 as recommended by the <br />Planning Board. <br /> <br />6. Sections 1-4 and 1-10 modification of the wording to speak to bona fide <br /> farms. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />Page 2; (a) Section 1.4 add the following sentence to the section. Bona <br />fide farms are exempt from this provision. <br /> <br /> (b) Section 1:10 Bona Fide Farms Exempt; amended as follows: these <br />regulations shall not affect bona fide farms owner operated or leased. <br /> <br /> No one spoke regarding this proposed amendment except Mr. Bill Powlas <br />who questioned the criteria for determining a bona fide farm. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Nash, seconded by Commissioner Cook and <br />unanimously carried, the Board adopted the proposed amendment to the <br />Zoning Ordinance as stated above. <br /> <br />7. Amendment to nonconforming section to allow the replacement of Mobile <br /> <br />Home (MH). <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />Nonconforming mobile homes on private lots may be removed and replaced <br />providing it is an improvement with proof. <br /> <br /> Mr. Raymond Ward objected to this proposed amendment, stating that <br />allowing the replacement of a mobile home that is nonconforming would delay <br />the establishment of an orderly growth pattern in a community and would be <br />unfair to residents in the area. He opposed the fact that a mobile home <br />owner would be able to replace his mobile home but that an owner of a vacant <br />lot would be unable to place a mobile home on that lot. <br /> Persons speaking in favor of this amendment to allow the replacement <br />of nonconforming mobile homes with improved mobile homes included Messrs. <br />Manuel Kiser, Jack Rankin, Bill Powlas, and Ray Lambert. Mr. R. L. Porter <br />stated, in his opinion, a property owner should have the freedom to place <br />a mobile home on his property if he wished to do so and suggested that <br />certain areas of the County where mobile homes are present before housing <br />that zoning regulations be enacted to disallow regular stick-built housing <br />in that area. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Lentz and <br />unanimously carried, the Board adopted Amendment 7 as recommended by the <br />Planning Board. <br /> <br /> <br />