Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'- <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />would provide a sufficient barrier for the problems mentioned. <br /> <br />A Mr. Ned Rhodes interjected and indicated that this was a flood plain area <br /> <br />and that this may have some bearing as a limiting factor on any other General Business <br /> <br />proposals which could possibly be placed on this parcel of land. This was in response <br /> <br />to Mr. Tousley's concern that by rezoning this to General Business the Board was <br /> <br />opening the door for any and all uses presently available in that classification. <br /> <br />Wendell Thaler asked about the lighting and Ned Rhodes responded that the <br /> <br />lights would be coned shaped to direct the light where it was needed and it would <br /> <br />be directed down. He further indicated that the lights would be located on poles <br /> <br />approximately 40 foot in height and that this should minimize any possible reflection <br /> <br />onto neighboring landowners. <br /> <br />Charles Swisher stated that from his calculations it appears that the <br /> <br />nearest residence to the proposed site was approximately 1,000 feet and asked for <br /> <br />some preliminary statement as to the hours of operation. Joni Perry stated that <br /> <br />the facility would be in operation from May to October and would open approximately <br /> <br />5:45 in the evening and the last game would begin at 9:15 at night. She further <br /> <br />indicated that the ballgames stop when the I hour and 15 minute is up so that the <br /> <br />park would be closed between 10:30 and approximately 11:00 P.M. <br /> <br />Ron Alexander asked why the petitioner simply did not request a variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Oliver responded that his clients were concerned with potential litigation in <br /> <br />the event that they could not comply with any restrictive covenants or commitments <br /> <br />which may be placed upon them by the Board the Zoning Appeals. <br /> <br />Chairman Barry indicated that there was some mention that the proposed <br /> <br />entrance into the petitioned property was located in part on Mr. Fields property and <br /> <br />questioned what the petitioners intended to do if Mr. Fields did not allow the use <br /> <br />of his property as an access. Delbert Hobson responded that a two lane road could <br /> <br />be built if the county took down part of the guard rail. Mr. Hobson further felt <br /> <br />that the piece of property in question was an easement and the use by the petitioners <br /> <br />for ingress and egress could not be restricted. <br /> <br />-5- <br />