Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes of October 16, 1997 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Page 5, Section 106-263, proposed #3: If use is <br />allowed to change to another use, does not want <br />extended useful life to change with each use. <br />Page 4, #8. Question regarding abandonment of use <br />versus abandonment of structure. Mr. Rankin noted <br />that abandonment of structure remains 180 days as <br />in current ordinance but in proposed ordinance, <br />abandonment of use is 90 days. <br />John Armstrong suggested <br />abandonment of use and <br />abandonment of structure. <br />2. OPPONENTS <br />There were none. <br />developing a paragraph for <br />a separate paragraph for <br />Ben Ritchie addressed the Commission neither as an <br />opponent nor a proponent. Mr. Ritchie owns property that <br />would be affected by the proposed ordinance. He believes <br />his constitutional rights are being violated. <br />Bernard LeGrand addressed the Commission neither as an <br />opponent nor a proponent. He asked the following <br />questions. <br />Page 4, #8. Why is a use abandoned after 180 days? Why <br />not 90 days? Mr. Rankin's answer was that 180 days was <br />chosen for consistency. <br />Page 10, Paragraph (f): Does this mean police intervention <br />on numerous occasions? Chairperson Waters explained it <br />was criminal activity generated from the non-ca~forming use. <br />Page 12, Section 106-270: If a liquor establishment closes, <br />can another business continue it its place? Mr. Armstrong <br />answered that the provisions of the ordinance regarding non- <br />conforming uses would apply. <br />V. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING <br />Chairperson Waters closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 PM. <br />