Agenda - 09-30-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

100 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 15 I feet we must deny this amendment (and subsequent planned development) to maintain the integrity of our Land Use Plan and Plan Amendment process, and to maintain the commitment we have to our citizens to protect their residences in such situations. Gordon left at 9 :10 p .m . Pearson stated that he felt the procedure followed by Gordon in presenting her statement was illegal • due to the fact that it was not presented at the public hearing end rebuttal would not be allowed by the applicant . Shanklin stated that since Gordon would not be present for the vote, how she would or would not have voted should not influence the decision . Walters asked if Gordon 's comments could be considered. Smith responded she would not be exercising her position by voting and that her comments could be considered in like manner as any other Board member comments heard on the item . Smith informed the Board that there are no "findings" to be made on the amendment request . MOTION: • Pearson moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment . Shanklin seconded the motion . Yuhasz questioned if areas are designated Rural Residential "forever" of if there are holding areas subject to change as conditions change in an area . Walters reviewed the procedures for change and noted that the evidence presented and people commenting influence the decision . Shanklin indicated it was obvious that the Boards intended to make changes as the mechanism for change was incorporated in the document . Jacobs noted that at the public hearing staff reviewed how the area was zoned . Pearson responded that in this case the zoning went with the property line . Jacobs continued that many people view the R-1 zone as a guarantee, a protection of their life style and of rural areas and modest residential areas . In this case the Land Use Plan was viewed as a guarantee given citizen comment . He •