Shed

Shed

From Page A1

status of the property.

County resident Newbill Miller referred to the proposed use of the building as “ludicrous.”

“I don’A think the people in the county are going to like it,” he said. “I know you want to do a favor for this gentleman, but it would be a disfavor to the rest of the county to permit this.”

Flint Hill resident Phil Irwin also questioned how a commercial building could be placed on a property zoned for agricultural use.

McCarthy responded, “Because the ordinance says you can. How can you have a bed and breakfast in an agricultural zone? Because the ordinance says you can.”

In his comments to the applicant, a resident of his district, commission member Charles Strittmatter recognized the problems the agricultural nature of the building would present. He said he had been told by others the building would make a good location for boutiques or a shopping area but added that these uses, and even the one proposed, were difficult to pass due to the zoning of the property.

“It’s agricultural. You’ve heard the public tonight,” he said.

But there were other issues with the property’s usage aside from zoning. Also in question was the affect the more intensive nature of the proposed use would have on traffic conditions at the intersection of Route 630 and Route 522, an intersection Irwin felt was already among the most dangerous in the county.

Confusion existed about where a deceleration lane for the property would be placed, and what result this would have for the intersection, the property and Wakefield Country Day School.

Also concerning the commission was the number of occupants Clark proposed for the building. He said the current septic system would sustain between seven and 12 workers. Members felt more comfortable allowing the four person limit which had been