BC 1985 07 09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

273 Beginning at Point A the centerline of Isenhour Road, SR 1625, thence running northwest along the Upright property line approximately 215.35 feet to Point B, thence running east approximately 215.35 feet to Point C, thence running approximately 215.35 feet south to Point D the centerline of Isenhour Road, SR 1625, thence returning to and ending at Point A approximately 215.35 feet west. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Hamby and unanimously carried, the Board asked the Planning staff to look at the entire tract of property on Isenhour Road and have recommendations, if any, to the Planning Board at the September meeting for rezoning the property. (6) Petition 85-28. Withdrawn. (7) Petition 85-29. Danny Bost and Others, Bethpage Road, Aileen Avenue and South Main Street, township 4, Map/PIN 5613(11)-55-1019. Wishes to rezone from RMF-7 to C-3. 4-0 approval, Board felt this was more compatible with the existing land use than the RMF-7 zone. Mr. James F. Owens, Assistant Planning Director, pointed out that a correction should be made to the agenda to state that the requested rezoning was from RMF-7 to C-2 instead of C-3. Mr. William Alexander, attorney for the property owners, spoke in support of the rezoning petition. No one spoke against the requested rezoning. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Barnhardt, seconded by Commissioner Upright and unanimously carried, the Board approved Petition 85-29 by Danny Bost and others to rezone property on Bethpage Road, Aileen Avenue and South Main Street, Map/PIN 5613(11)-55-1019, from RMF-7 to C-2. (8) Petition 85-30. Tabled (9) Petition 85-31. Harling and Mervin, Inc., Laverne Drive, township 11, Map/PIN 5529(19)-71-8126. Wishes to rezone from R-9 to RMF-7A. 4-0 approval, Board felt this would be compatible with neighborhood where duplexes already exist. Mr. Owens advised the Board that the request if granted would constitute spot zoning and stated it was the recommendation of the Planning staff that an overall comprehensive plan be developed for the area prior to the creation of such a zone in that area. Mr. Laine Harling, property owner, reported that he had now acquired enough property to permit the construction of three duplexes but wished to have the property rezoned in order to build four duplexes and thereby reduce the cost of the project. He stated that the proposed apartments would be,compatible with the neighborhood and that a privacy fence would be erected around the property. Mr. Phillip G. Carroll, attorney representing residents of the neighbor- hood opposed to the rezoning, requested the denial of the rezoning petition. He complained that the rezoning signs had been posted for a short period of time on the wrong property and that some residents living within 100 feet of the property had not been notified by letter. Mr. Carroll pointed out that the rezoning would constitute spot zoning and stated the duplexes would create additional traffic as well as be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Carroll presented a petition signed by 34 neighbors in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. L. J. Foster, resident of the neighborhood, objected to the rezoning, stating that the planned apartments would lower the property values in the area. Ms. Juanita Blackwelder objected to the location of apartments in the community, stating that they would not be up to standard in that neighborhood. Mr. Charlie Blackwelder objected to the erection of a fence around the apartments as he stated there were no other fences in the community. Ms. Judy McCord objected to the placement of multi-family housing in the neighborhood, stating it would not contribute to the good of the neighborhood. There was no one else present to speak for or against the rezoning.