SEPT. 19, 1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

exhibit was admitted, with reference to be made to the objections in weighing the evidence. Mrs. Nicholson then went on to state that the flow problems of the sewer plant upstream in the wet season could create additional polution problems to the pit and surrounding area. She stated the importance of the zoning principal of land use plans and separation of living areas from other land use areas. She stated that the number of children in Wellwood and Springhill Apartments created a conflict with land use and compatibility. As to Item 2 of the requirements under the Special Exception procedure, she said the two uses were not compatible and that the proposed special use would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties. As to Item 3 of the required findings, she stated that the appraisal of Jim Arnold, a licensed appraiser, stated that the Wellwood property values would be effected and in particular their property would lose approximately 35% of the appraised $200,000.00 figure. In addition, she stated that the proposed use would reduce the market values and impede area development. Next dealing with Item 4 of the findings, she stated that adequate access roads had not been provided into the areas and likewise addressing Item 5, the number of traffic lights in the area to control the area from truck traffic con- gestion would increase significantly to the possibility of three lights within 6/10 of a mile. She felt that this wo~Lld be a negative affect to the community as a whole. Finally addressing finding No. 6, she stated that all other requirements in the ordinance could not be met and for this reason the property should not be granted the Special Exception. Finally, Mrs. Nicholson stated that the property values of the area would be effected and in her opinion as a City Planner the proposed use would adversely affect the Town and values, including the tax base due to the loss in value of the residential area. -11-