Minutes - 19850312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

034 Gledhill pointed out that since this was not a request for rezoning but for issuance of a Special Use Permit, it was fact not opinion oriented. Kizer inquired of Mr. Holton just what material went to him in his notification letter. Holton responded there were no specifics regarding the manner of evidence to be submitted. Kizer further noted that if a property owner felt his property value was being lessened by a particular dollar amount then expert opinion is required. Kizer continued that perhaps this could be explained in the notification letter in the future. Mr. Holton responded that it would be helpful if the notification letter read that way. Mr. Holton expressed concern regarding technicalities vs. personal approach to presenting evidence. Kizer stated that one aspect of this procedure that was very important is that the consideration of the application for Special Use Permit is conducted as a hearing. If conditions are met, that is specific standards and evaluations are satisfied, then the Board is bound to approve the permit unless opposition can provide specific evidence that it does not meet the standards. Wilson asked Holton to address the impact on property values of other development. Holton responded that in his perception the existing mobile home park deminished his property values and the proposed development further threatens property values. Pearson questioned that Holton had no expertise in land values. Gledhill noted that the law allowed a lay person to testify to the value of his own property and that this was an exception to the general rule regard- ing an expert opinion. Commissioner Marshall stated it was important to advertise the status of the evidence needed in these matters. Willhoit asked that the Planning Department meet with the attorney to determine the nature of the evidence needed. Carl Walter, resident of the area off Craig Road, noted that he had the impression that the arguments presented thus far were legally academic. He also was concerned with the traffic and trash problems. He presented a petition with the signatures of 24 property owners objecting to the development. Marshall inquired if the objections were for specific reasons. Walter responded traffic, trash, etc. Planning Board Chair Gordon asked Mr. Walter to read the petition. The petition cited a memo prepared by Philip Post and Associates dated February 25, 1985 regarding traffic analysis. Mr. Walter questioned the validity of the analysis. He also inserted photographs regarding trash into the record.