Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br /> <br />inherent proolems of industry and housing being in the same general <br />area. <br /> <br />Pete Swisner, as representative of Kendrick nospital stated/without <br />elaooration, ti1at they are opposed to the apartment complex. <br /> <br />Joel:! 19arsons , as representative of 130yd }iei[;hts suo-division, <br />was concerned for the additional load on the sewers and the school <br />system as well as its ultimate effect on property values to already <br />existing single family units in the area near the proposed apartment <br />complex. <br /> <br />8ill daymond, hooker Road, also spoke to his concern for property <br />values in the area. <br /> <br />James Dodd, attorney representing Paul Bryant, spoke regarding the <br />suit filed for his client regarding the annexation proceedings. The <br />ultimate outcome of this remains to be settled in court and after <br />eXCHanges between attorneys, he was reminded by attorney Lawson that <br />toe outcome of tnat suit is not the present concern of the Plan <br />Commission, only land use. <br /> <br />Attorney Gene durros, representing Cloverleaf Corp. answered to <br />remarks by remonstrators that: <br /> <br />1. Cloverleaf Properties pay their own way in taxes. <br /> <br />2. The streets and sewers of Cloverleaf Complexes are taken care <br />of without dependence on town personell. <br /> <br />~. Cloverleaf fore-sees no overload on schools at any time. Of <br />the 80 units porposed in phase one, half the complex is for families <br />of two memoers and half for families of 1 child unless there are <br />2 children of the same sex. And they hope for ma~y elderly <br />occupants. de reminded those concerned for property values that this is <br />directly related to management of the project and Cloverleaf Properties have <br />a very good record in this respect. To those concerned for traffic nrab lems <br />tnere will De deceleration lanes. <br /> <br />In discusssion that followed the open hearing the i30ard was reminded <br />that if tne Plan commission recommends re-zoninc to i!lulti-Family, the <br />developers of the complex must meet all State and Local Zoning requirements <br />including tnose of tne State highway Commission and must return to the <br />Plan CommiGsion for presentation of final plans. <br /> <br />doard members Tilford Bailey and Steve Edwards indicated a real <br />concern for traffic proolems. <br /> <br />Eweather Stephens stated her objection to a binding a~reement made <br />oy a previous Town doard that nullifies a future decision or recommendation <br />of another Covernmental Unit, in this case the Plan Commission. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br />;ihen di/J.scussion was completed Bill Abbott made a motion that ',Ie <br />recommend to the Town doard the approval of the developers petition with <br />the stipulation that any development will be in full compliance with the <br />Suo-division 60ntrol Ordinance in force at that time. The motion was <br />seconded by Rouert Farmer. <br />