Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
hearing was deficient in that it did not adequately describe what was being sought. The advertisement states that the application is for rezoning from agricultural and conservation to residential subdivision. No mention is made in the advertisement that part of the property is currently zoned residential business, Konik said.
(In June 1979, the planning commission required that a public hearing for Peter Kramer’s proposed rezoning be readvertised because the first advertisement described the rezoning sought as from flood plain to commercial rather than from agriculture to commercial.)
Konick told the commissioners that his client, whose property borders the proposed subdivision on all sides, is opposed to the development on general as well as specific grounds; that it will cause additional traffic and noise and increase the county’s tax burden.
Sub. Ordinance Controls? Commissioner Newbill Miller maintained that even if the Article 6 and 1-3 of the county’s zoning ordinance are ruled invalid, subdivision regulations will still apply to the proposed development. Konick countered that the subdivision ordinance controls only lot size, not land use. With just subdivision ordinance regulations in force, "they might only be able to have ten lots but they could have business or industrial uses on those lots,” he said.
87.0%