Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />MOORESVILLE PLAN COMMISSION <br /> <br />Minutes of meeting of September 28, <br /> <br />1978. <br /> <br />The Mooresville Plan Commission met <br />September 28, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. at <br />Board members were present: <br /> <br />in regular session on Thursday, <br />the Town Hall. The following <br /> <br />Mr. William Abbott <br />Mr. Warren Grubb, Jr. <br />Mr. Steve Edwards <br />Mr, Tilford Bailey <br />Mr. George Smith <br />Mrs. Nan Kollmeyer <br /> <br />Mr. David E. Lawson, attorney for the Board, was also present. <br /> <br />In the absence of an appointed Secretary, Mrs. Nan Kollmeyer was <br />appointed as acting Secretary for the meeting. <br /> <br />The petition filed by Alan D. and Sue Ann Tutewiler which was <br />filed as Plan Commission Docket No. 9-1978 was found to be pro- <br />cedurally in order. The petitioners were represented by their <br />counsel, Mr. Tim Currens. The evidence was presented by Mr. Currens <br />in behalf of the petitioner. Remonstrators appears against the <br />petition and were represented by Mr. Sam Kagan. <br /> <br />The following individuals appeared in opposition to the request <br />for rezoning: Mr. Randall Caldwell, 205 Bishop Street; Mrs. <br />Della Gunnell, 211 Bishop Street; Mr. James Masterson; Mrs. Mary <br />Caldwell, 205 Bishop Street; Mr. Thomas White, 166 Maple Lane; <br />Mrs. Carol White, 166 Maple Lane; Mrs. Denton, 209 Bishop; Mr. <br />Lee Gorman, 210 Taylor; Mrs. Ruth Allen, 172 Maple Lane; Mr. <br />Kuykendall, 321 Maple Lane; Mr. Bill Carter, 168 Taylor Street; <br />and Mr. Charles Gunnell, 211 Bishop Street. <br /> <br />After the Board heamevidence from both the petitioner and remon- <br />strators, there was a discussion as to whether or not the petitioner <br />would agree to amend his application for rezoning from A-Single <br />family to GB General Business instead of I-Industrial. <br /> <br />Mr. Kagan asked that the minutes of the meeting reflect that he <br />objected to any amendment in the petition as filed and advertised <br />and that, in his opinion, would not be legally correct. <br /> <br />The Board requested an opinion from its attorney. Mr. Lawson indi- <br />cated that as the petition had been advertised for I-Industrial <br />and as remonstrators objected to the same, that in this instance <br />he believed that although the request for amendment would be for <br /> <br />'--' <br />