Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-5- <br />Delbert Hobson testified that he did not believe that the placement <br />of Allison Drive as per the plat would create any additional safety <br />hazard. This was given as the professional opinion of an engineer. <br />Mr. Lawson further advised that he felt there was no factual <br />basis for the light complaints from the Mauers. He felt that most <br />people go to bed at night and that there is not much of a traffic <br />problemattlattime of night to cause the problems complained of by <br />the Mauers. He further felt that when any individual moves to a <br />rural area one must realize the possibility that the city may expand <br />and come out to the rural area. Mr. Lawson also advised of a June 7th <br />Supreme Court decision dealing with the rights of individuals to <br />develop land as they see fit and the limitations that the case imposed <br />upon planning commissions and town governments in general and the <br />passing of zoning ordinances. He advised that this suggestion was <br />not a threat of any lawsuit but merely to advise the Board of his <br />belief that once the minimum requirements were met the Board had no <br />authority but to approve the plat. <br />Phil Smith responded that the whole idea of having a planning <br />commission is to have some discretion and control over land development. <br />He felt that in the area of subdivisions if it were required that <br />the Board approve the plat if the minimum requirements were met, then <br />a Board would not be needed to make such a determination. He felt <br />it was a concern or should be a concern of the planning commission <br /> <br /> <br />over safety and again felt that the closeness of the intersections <br /> <br /> <br />of Duncan Drive with proposed Allison Drive would create increased <br /> <br /> <br />safety hazards. <br /> <br />'-- <br />