Minutes - 19840123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3U'~ 12 Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this ropcsal Griounted tc taking land vrith no compensation. H2 felt it was excessive and that property owners were being forced into accepting T-40. Fie comr:rented that the cancerr. ~•ras keeping the land green, but with no compensation for owners and that lane was effectively removed from the tax base. Herter Smith expressed concern with 'u .24..4, the 25v natural vegetation provision. He c?uestianed the provision where there is no existing vegetation. Henry i•7hitfield, property owner in the I-40 corridor, noted that the corridor would cost the ovrners he represented about 10 acres of property. Accordng to tir. Whitfield tire buffer v:auld take an additional 23 acres v;ith ro payment to ovrners. He was particularly concerned with land split by the corridor. [=iz. ti•7hitfield asked for a shoc~r of hands fcr property owners ir. the corric::or in favor and against the buffer. This shovred approxiriately 25 against and 5 in favor of the buffer. He felt that site plans would take care of the fear of contamination of the J.andscape with unsightly builcincs. F(izer, Plan;,ing Board member, noted that it is important to understand t_r. 11cAdams paint that this proposal constitutes an uncompensated "taking". Fie continued that it should be a point cf order to prevent a "taking" of land inadvertently or intentionally. Since he felt this might result in an uncompensated "taking", he recuested that the County Attorney comrnert an the possibility of an illegal talcing of land. Commissioner i~+Ti11Y'ioit noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire ordinance fcr legality. Ron [Merritt of Pdorth~,oods Horieowners Association ineruired about property owners bein, notified of particular applications and perr,~it approvals for development. t;hittec rioted that changing the underlying zoning crould recyuire notice. Fierritt stated he would lid:e to see the inclusion of a provision regarding notire of adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building permit approvals far sites with correct zoning. Joe Izistler, propert~r owners Gdjacent to 2-40 but outside of 100' buffer, urged the Board to consider individuals beyond the corridozs. He indicated vegetation is very important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers could pursue creative uses of land within the statutes. Jack I.losely, owner of the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns regarding signs such as his directional sign for customers off Iv.C. 36. Smith responded the proposal would not allow off-premise signs in the district. She clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal and that future single and two fariily houses were not subject to the prOAOSed development standards. She clarified that both single family houses and - duplexes can be developed with normal setbacks inc. without being subject to - vegetation provisions. •. i•IcAdams ruestioned the application of the 100' setback to approval of six (6) subnivisions and their. designs. If so, he continued, tY:is must be qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and tyro-family dvrellings. The public hearing was adjourned until the February 2]., 1954 public hearing. Proposed Text F,mendraent~ to Article 9 Signs Presentation as follows by Smith: The proposed text an:endr:;ents to Art].Cle 9 5i__w _ns address tore main issues: 1) the types of signs permitted in the idiC district and 2) the placement of outdoor advertising outside the I-_TC district.