HomeMy WebLinkAbout650002.tifftoci4 i784
Cfl
r;
7°
Recorded at .. --....
Rec. No. rf$\. ?®--- Mary Ann Feuerstein, Recorder
GRANTING CHANGE OF ZONE
SEELEY LAKE AREA
FOR WILLIAM R. STEVENS:
DEC 1n 1978
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1964, a public hearing was had for the purpose
of hearing protestants, if any, regarding a change of zone in the Seeley Lake Area
as requested by William R. Stevens of 1409 Sixteenth Avenue, Greeley, Colorado,
said area more particularly described as follows:
West Half of Lot Four of the Northeast Quarter being in the
NE4NW4 of Section 6, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the
6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners having heard the testimony
and evidence adduced upon said hearing, including petitions presented, and
having considered and carefully weighed the same, and being fully advised in
the premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of
E Weld County, Colorado that the recommendation of the Weld County Planning Commission
for a denial of a request for a change of zone be and is hereby rescinded.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County,
Colorado, that the request for a change of zone from "A" Agricultural District to
"C" Commercial District as requested by William R. Stevens be and is hereby granted.
The above and foregoing resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded
adopted by the following vote:
DATED: JANUARY 6, 1965
MB: 33 Page / 7,47
2
AYES: /L, i L
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
E
650002
LHR
PLO/102
% 784
N.W.COR
LOT 4
WLINE LOT 4
SW. COR.
N.E At NW S.
Sec. 6,T 5N,
R 65 W.
N LINE 0T 4
„ 64I.48
S.,89° 06 20 E
320.74'
It_
I In.
ti FROM ; w
y A I....
S� I M
zQ 12 TO _ ; 3
Q
W— W C a,
zI Ig it'
tun
IN IC
oz
o+
S LINE
313.40' LOT 4
= N?9° 49 50 W
t59.05' �1
Existing Iron Pin
:7 7061,20
NE CORNER
LOT 4
R.R R.RA IL
L SCALE
1 l= 200'
Existing Stone
Amending "SEELEY LAKE" Zoning Map
West half (W i) of Lot 4, NE +, NW+ 9of Section
6, Township 5 North, Range 65 test, of the 6 th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado, from an "A" Agricultural
Zoning District to a "C" Commercial Zoning District.
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated November 10, 1964,
duly published November 13 and December 4, 1964, a public hearing was had on
a Change of Zone as requested by William R. Stevens, at the time and place
specified in said notice. The decision on the evidence presented at said hearing
was taken under advisement until a later date.
ATTEST:
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
DATED: DECEMBER 16, 1964
CHAIRMA,. f f
BOARD 0 COUNTY COMItSSIONERS ��
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO %'
NOTICE
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, THE WELD
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AND CERTIFIES TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, THE DENIAL OF A
REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "C" COMMERCIAL
IN THE SEELEY LAKE AREA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
West half (WIT) of Lot 4, being in the NE4NW4 of
Section 6, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the
6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY COURT HOUSE, GREELEY, COLORADO, ON
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1964 AT 2:00 P. M. O'CLOCK.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1964.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: ANN SPOMER
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Greeley Booster
Publish Nov 13 & Dec.4
•
THE GREEnEE't Qc f" -E trantarrl tell`''1994'
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zonlne laws- et
the. State of- lorado, the Weld
County `PE Zig.- Commission tee-.
ommends an certifies to the.. Board
of -,County Commissioners," Weld
County, Colorado, the denial of S;
request for change of zone from
Al-Agricuits'ral to "C" Commer.
"in t$5,.: Seeley Lake' Area,
more particularly described as fol.
lows:... ..
West half s(W%) of Lot 4, be.
ing in the NE%NW% of- Sec-
tion 6, Township 5 North,
Range 65 West of the 6th P.
AL, Weld County, Colorado.
A public hearing will be held in
the office of. the Board of County
Commissioners, Weld County Court
House, Greeley, Colorado on Wed.
nesday, December 16, 1964 at 2:00
P:Jt. o'clock.-
Dated this 10th , day of Noveni_
ber, 1964 -
TBIg.,ROARD OFcolumn
- COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
By: ANN SPOMER
County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
Noesiallair
BEFOri TAE WELD COUNTY, C.:1LCRADu PLANNING COMMISSION
IESOLUT IU0 CF RECO1.u,ENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CASE 110.
APPLICATION OF
Address
2 'OS). S c cra u
Moved by 3:,°.:i_.'?+atsoi. that the following resolution be introdu-
ed for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application
for rezoning from A ( ;ricultural District) to "C"
( .
°..;,:;,n,ea: ci�:.l District) of.... _ ..... �'�yl.;.r.,z: I:. Stever;
of Seeley La!:e :.red covering the following described pro-
. .. Weld County, Colorado, to -wit:
'geSt T41f (W 1/2) of Lot I oui (4 ) of the .•'.c,r theast ..ivarters � '_. 1/4)
of :c,rtl:.c:e ,_ Quarto, (7:w 1/'•i) of Section 3i: (6), Township , _vc ( .)
::crtF, Lange Sixty-five (::J) West of the 6th P. M., :'old County,
v ;.•]. or auc
be recommended Wt 0414 (unfavorably) to the Board of County Commis-
sioners for the following reasons:
Present land use being a,;riclltoral, the site cf the request for ch.:;nge of zone
was tc.c premature.
T1.ot the 1..:,:; _.;j cent to the Ccuth is definitely residonti. 1.
Motion seconded by
Vote:
For Passage:
wt'l.w...{.l w. . L. i.�.ia .. . . ....... .. _ .......
:.. A. irkl..
Ice.....-.r,',-.:�..:... .
^role
Against Passage;
The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified cope of this Res-
olution be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners
for further proceedings.
_a_.. 11 lr ivt•.. i.L•1. yL v♦ _
I•r` y(1 .J•., Ii1 ^� •..:VOr._1 ..'j i1•'vl ^. �cl.+ Lt
i� 'r'— •_ 1... .:. ; ,??ove cl!':. ftre cl.^^.g ?
:i�S::l_i'i:l_(: :a c. true .c,.; f :��5LiUtT _.. f
} 'r, :OAIM, ssic'in a We1u county, .rclGj'•'..�?�., ..:.?C�:,:6�:1 ..n Oct... 'I• 1),
'•in 71, 1.3^e No. , c.[ �1ac procce,31r1 of sid
U tee'. this '^th J:. (dr ::cve:aber, 1;n1.
VP' D COUN1Y, COLORADO
OFFICE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY CCPj'1.1ISSIONERS
GREELEY, COLORADO
'STATE OF COLORADO ) ss
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, Ann Spomer, County Clerk and Ex -officio Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from
the records of the proceedings of the Board of County
Commissioners for said Weld County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed the seal of said County, at Greeley, Colo-
rado, this 19th day of October , A. D. 1973 .
i
L
COUNTY G
Deputy County Clerk
This was to certify to William Shade the copy of the
Commissioners resolution Dated: August 19, 1964.
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF .LLD COUNTY:
This is to advise you that although we cannot be present to support
Mr. Stevens' zoning petition personally, we wish to have this letter
entered into the record as favoring the zoning per his petition.
It is our understanding that his petition was turned down by the
County Planning Commission because the area involved is too small. We
wish to advise the Commissioners that we own ten acres located on the
southwest corner of the intersection, of which Mr. Stevens owns the north—
east corner, and we are in favor of it being zoned into the "C" category
and would include our land if a new petition were to be initiated.
4.2
Theo J. Burrous (Date)
Hattie W. Burrous (Date)
November 9, 1964
Rodger I. Houtchens
Weld County Bank Building
1007 9th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado
Dear Mr. Houtchensi
Reference is made to your letter of October 24\1964,
denying the, rezoning request of R. Stevens.
The Board of County Comm
that a hearing upon this ma
December 16th at 2:00 o'cloc
Board of County Commissioners.
CC:
1 publish a notice
eld on Wednesday,
he Office of the
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TY, COLORADO
Chairman, Pro Tem
LAW OFFICES
HOUTCHENS, HOUTCHENS AND DOOLEY
BARNARD HOUTCHEN5
5 -ROBERT HOUTCHENS
RODGER I.HOUTCHEN5
JOHN J. DBOLEY
WELD COUNTY BANK SUILOING, 1007 NINTH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 60631
Board of County Commissioners
Greeley
Colorado
Gentlemen:
October 26, 1964
TELEPHONE 352-4050
AREA CODE 303
On October 19, 1964, the County Planning Commission heard an application
of rezoning presented by William R. Stevens of this city to rezone property
which is now in A Zoning District to C Zoning District, described as follows,
to -wit:
West Half (WI) of Lot Four (4) of the Northeast Quarter
(NE4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Section Six (6),
Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty-five (65) West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
We have been advised, but not officially, that the County Planning Commission
made a recommendation contrary to the prayer of the petition.
In reading the official zoning resolution regulations provided to us by
the secretary of the Planning Commission, we find that the Board of County Com-
missioners are required to have a public hearing upon petition.
It is our desire to follow the administrative procedures. If notice that
Mr. Stevens will request the Board of County Commissioners to rule upon his
application for rezoning is required, it is intended that this letter be that
notice.
It would be appreciated if you would advise the undersigned as to the
date of the hearing as well as advising Mr. Stevens.
RIH/jh
cc: Mr. George Moser, Chairman
County Planning Commission
Secretary
County Planning Commission
Mr. William R. Stevens
Very truly yours,
Rodger JI. Houtchens
WELD CO. COMMISSIONERS
OR MILKY, COLO.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 1964
P.M.
4111 P.M.
4
William R. Steven Hearing on Denial oy Planning Commission
For A Change of Zone in the Seeley Lake Area
December 16, 1964 - 2:00 P. M.
Mr. Shultz: At this time we will bring the hearing to order. On the application
of William R. Stevens, 1409 Sixteenth Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Mr. Stevens is asking that a plot of ground located in the west
half of Lot 4 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 6, Township Five North, Range 65, West of the 6th P. M.
Weld County, Colorado. Mrs Stevens is asking for a Change of
Zone from A toC' and it has been properly advertised, I will
read the notice.
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, the
Weld County Planning Commission recommends and certifies to
the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado the
denial of a request for a changaof zone from "A" Agricultural
to "C" Commercial in the Seeley Lake Area, more particularly
described as follows: THE DESCRIPTION READS THE SAME AS ABOVE...
A public hearing will be held in the office of the Board of
County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, Court House,
Greeley, Colorado, on Wednesday, December 16, 1964, at
2:00 P. M. Dated this 10th day of November 1964, Board of
County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, By Ann Spomer
County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board.
At this time I believe I will ask for the applicant to state his
reasons for a change of zone in this particular area.
William Stevens:
About two years ago I purchased this land for the purpose of a
truck terminal, more or less for dispatching and parking. In the
business of long hauling, that is from here to Illinois, Indiana
and so forth. Due to several reasons we did not get started
or moved into the area before the area became rezoned. We purchased
the lots with the idea of a terminal, it is ideally situated and
therefore when it was zoned agricultural, I was dumbfounded and
thus began this procedure to see if we could not rezone it to "C"
2
which the trucking area apparently comes under, trucking category.
The business6in the area are Ward Planning Mill not to far away,
the C and S railroad track runs to the north approximately 1,000 feet,
there'Sthe County Shops, the State Patrol on 14th Avenue, there is a
Plumbing Shop on 5th Street, and the area seems to me ideally situated
for this type of a business. I am unable to begin my operation until
I get it rezoned into "C" this is why I am requesting a change of zone.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you Mr. Stevens, Anyone else have any comments on why the area
should be rezoned?
Mr. Stevens: Mr. Bucklien has signed a petition in favor of the change, Mr. Pulliam
who has the duplex directly across the south line is in favor of it,
We have a letter here from the Burrough's , who could not be hwe
today, but I will read it to you and submit it as evidence
To the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, This is to
advise you that although we can not be present to support Mr. Stevens
petiton personally we wish to have this letter entered into the record
as in favor of zoning per his petition. It is our understanding that
his petition was turned down by the County Planning Commission because
the area involved was too small, we wish to advise the Commissioners
that we own 10 acres on the southwest corner of the ir4ersection of
which Mr. Stevens own the northeast corner and we are in favor of it
being zoned for "C" and would include our land if a new petition were
to be initiated. Signed: Mr. and Mrs. Burroughs."
Mr. Shultz: The letter is accepted as evidence
Mr. Stevens: Mr. Ben Cruce who has the land directly to the east of me, has commented
that he wish the area were zoned "I" which would be to include manufacturing
and othertypes of businesses. He has not stated this to me personally but
I understand this is his desire.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you Mr. Stevens, Mr. Roger Houtchens would you care to add
anything or make any statement at this time.
Roger Houtchens:
I am here on behalf of Bill Stevens I will confirm the fact that Mr. Cruce
has stated to me that he thinks this area has been gro4r mis-zoned
to the detriment of the people of Weld County, it is his opinion that
it should have been zoned "I" at the initial hearing. Simply because
we make an error in zoning these things initially it does not mean
that it should be perpetuated. It seems to me that the reasons of the
County Planning Committee were nebulus and really quite difficult to
understand. They decided this was too small an area to zone, well
this is five acres of land, this is two city blocks. This area out
there is served by a railway to the north, by good highways around it,
is ideally situated to an industrial development. The whole area is
owned by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Cruce, I think Mr. Holmes owns some of it
Oscar Olson owns Property to the north and Mr. Corbett. The Olsons are
opposed to this petition. His neighbors (Mr. Stevens) to the south
Burroughs, Bucklien Subdivision, have been in favor of the petition
When you get further east of this you are quite a distance from the
intersection of this corner. I think that any opinion that those
people to the east of Bucklien Subdivision might have concerning it
might be almost out of the area, where you would be required to give
them notice. Their opinion and desires should be weighed accordingly,
that is they are really not to affected with the proposed zoning. I
do not mean that they do not have a right to come down here and protest.
All I am saying is they are very nearly outside the effected area.
Again I reiterate this area the Andy Epple farm is there and the best
use that could be made of this area is for an industrial purpose.
Mr. Stevens has asked for something less than An industrial purpose
that which will only fit his particular need at this time. If you
his ugh rat
have discussed with Mr. Stevens as I have tat with S plans and expects
to do here, it will be an assest to the County of Weld and to the
City of Greeley. We respectfully ask that the County Commissioners grant
the prayer of the petition and rezone this for Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you Roger. Anyone else present who would care to testify
in behalf of Mr. Stevens application for rezoning from "A" to "C".
Carl Bucklien: I have the property across the street on the south side clear across
this property and it has been the talk that the future of this area
shwld be industrial. On the south side of that street is a lot
of residential and farther east there is some commercial, on the
north side of srre.} and if that wthnds up as commercial
for a half of block, Sot bask we are crowding industrial out
and that much further back. A lot of people say a step toward
commercial is industrial but that is not necessary.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you Mr. Bucklien, would anyone else care to make a statement
on behalf of Mr. Stevens
Charles Pulliam: I don't see where we can keep fighting to keep business away
from town.
As many
businesses as there are
down in
that
area
it looks to me like it is coming in sooner or later I don't know
why we should stick our necks ouk and fight against it anymore
than to try and keep out some industry that is detrimental to the
community which doesn't look like this man's business is a detriment
to the community. It looks like it is an asset to the community.
Mr. Stevens: Before we start with those who are against us, I would like to have
this map entered as evidence it shows the area we propose to have zoned
and the area in which the people live. The colored area on the map
is the section which we own, and are asking to be rezoned. Over here
is the 10 acres which the Burrough's own and are in favor of the change
Mr. Pulliam owns, this area ---- decribes who owns land----
5
Mr. Carter has apparently changed his mind and is not of favor of it.
Mr. Cross apparently does not seem to care,one way or the other,
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Trujello they merely stated they would go
along with Mr. Cross. Mr. Cross did not do anything, so neither did
the other two men. Mr. and Mrs. Kraft are against it however they
are barely within the limit. Mr. Stevens further described the
landowners in relationship to the proposed change.
Mr. Houtchens: We will mark this map petitioners exhibit "A" which is an ownership
plat of the area immediately surrounding the lands owned by Mr. and Mrs.
Stevens.
Mr. Shultz: Accepted in evidence. If there are no further comments in favor of
the petition of Mr. Stevens I will ask the people who against the
change to testify at this time.
Keith Mr. Chairman, we own the tract northwest (10 acres) of this property
Vaughn:
I am opposed to rezoning you did mention that there is some industry
in the area at this time, however this industry was there before any
development and I am also opposed because this area does nd attract
industry. There has been no appreciable gain in this area. So if
we rezone a small portion of the area and the other area remains the
same complexion it will adversly effect the value of the other property.
We do have an industrial area that is designated as an industrial area.
Oscar Olson: I own the property right north of this and I am against this rezoning
I am not to fond of having a trucking industry right next to my property
If Mr. Stevens would sell part of this to someone else could you tell
me what all could go in here.
Mr. Shultz: I believe Mr. Palmquist is here and he could give us this information
Mr. Palmquist: I will read the text of the commercial Number one we are reffered to
all uses permitted B Business District as stated before so we will
start with B and under B Noi says all uses permitted in T transitional
as stated therefore, so we will start with T, Number one says all uses
permittted in H high density district, as stated therefore and going
to H we have all uses permitted in R, and R permits everyting in Estate
sokwe start with estate district, which covers schools, church, church
schools, crop grazing, orchards and garden uses, farm ranch, garden
and uses
buildings, provided commercial feed units or kennels are not maintained
one family dwellings, public parks, playgrounds and other public recreation
area owned and operated by governmental or other non-profit agencies,
public schools, public utilities mains,
storage or repair
no public office or4facilities are maintained, special
uses which are naturally and normally incidental to
it goes into signs which are not pertinent to the situation.
all uses permitted in E which I just read. Under H all uses
in R, bonding and rooming houses, colleges, private schools,
lines and sub -stations where
assossory
and then
Under R
permitted
dormitory
fraternity houses, soroity house, hospitals, rest homes, convalescent
and nurses homes, multiple family dwellings, pre-schools age nurseries,
two family dwellings. Then we come to T transitional, all uses permitted
in H, cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetable, plants, flowers
nursery stock produced on the premises, medical and dental clincs, membershi1
clubs, motels, hotels, professional offices, tourist homes, (will eliminate
trailer homes because that has been changed) undertaking establishments,
Then we come to B Business, all uses under T, automobile parking area
banks, gasoline service stations, personal service shops, places for
the conduct of any restricted retail business not of a commercial,
industrial or manufacturing nature, places of amusement or recreation,
places of assembly, places serving food or beverages, studios and
theaters, and specifically C all the uses in B Business District
7
automobile dealer repair shops, bakeries, bottling works, builder
supply yards, sale of cement and conrete products and lumberyards,
cabinet making and carpenter, cleaning and dying establishments,
dairy processing and distribution plants, frozen food lockers,
ice and color storage plants, laundries and machine shops and
manufacturer of handicraft products, place for the conduct of
any wholesale 'or-, commercial activity not of an industrial
or manufacturing nature, plumbing shops, printing and publishing
establishments, roofing shops, storage warehouses, storage of
oil gasoline and petroleumloroducts, tin shops, upholstery shops,
used car lots, veterinarian hospitals, this is it.
We refer back as we go along.
Mr. Olson: Suppose he should sell off some of this, if some of these others
came in there it should would not be desirable right up againast
our place, and it sure wouldn't improve the value of our land any.
In fact it would probably go the other way. Myself and Mr. Corbin
and Mr. are very happy the way it is and would like to see
it left in A zone. We understand that Mr. Holmes to the east is
opposed to selling we are just very happy to have it the way it is.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you Mr. Olson. Are there any more statements that anyone would
like to make against the petition.
Mrs. Carter: Would it be so zones then so a tavern could go in there. My husband
has been in the trucking business for years and it does not take
5 acres of ground for a terminal. It sure would be awful if we
should get a tavern down there to attract all kinds of undesirable
people, while we across the street in the city are residential.
Mr. Shultz: Yes from what Mr. Palmquist read, it (tavern) was included in this list.
I am inclined to believe that a tavern would be permissive in the area
8
provided it was possible for them to get a license. Any other comments
against the application.
Mr. Olson: After Mrs. Carter mentioned a tavern , that would surely be undesirable
in the neighborhood. I think it would be a good idea to leave it the
way it was. I'd like to see it and I think most of our neighbors would
George Mosier Chairman of the Planning Commission, I'd like to go back and review
a little bit on this area. They were asked oh 6 - 8 months ago
by the Planning Commission to make a study of zoning in this area
northwest Greeley. After numerous meetings in neighborhoods and
sohools we came up with the final draft that was presented to the
Commissioners to zone this area. In this immediate area there was
some question, it was talked about, some people desired it to be
zoned industrial because they had had some propositions I believe
it was Kuner Empson or some othercanning company were very much
interested at one time in establishing a plant. Then that kind
of fell through or was sidetracked up to the present. Some of the
members out there landowners circulated a petition that this be
zoned agriculture and stay agriculture until sometime that an
industrial endeavor could be brought in that would be worthy of
the whole countryside and to the City of Greeley. Mr. Cruce was one
of the boys to sign that petition and he told me since that time
that he was very happy that it was zoned agriculture. He didn't
want some little business or something going in that would jeapordize
the whole area out there for a good industrial area. With the oposition
that was presented to the County Planning Commission and reviewing
different situations, the Weld County Planning Commission went on
record as denying the change of zone. The area to be changed was too
small to be of any value except probably to one individual but as
an area as a whole which the Planning Commission has to consider
Change of Zone from "A" Agriculture to Business would not be
9
benefiting the whole area. I belive that is all Mr. Shultz. Is
there anymore questions?
Mr. Shultz: Thank you. Mr. Palmquist would you care to comment at this time..
on your observations.
there
Mr. Palmquist: No only that there has been some talk that/might be some more
commercial to go out in this area, but this has never been
presented to us. So we' know nothing about it actually it is
just word of mouth conversation.
Mr. Shultz: Would anyone else care to say anything before the hearing
Mr. Stevens: Yes I would like to comment on some of the opposition, one of
them was that Mr. Vaughn stated that noone had shown any interest
in business out there, as Mr Mosier stated Stokely Van Camp showed
quite an interest in moving out there. Mr. Olson mentioned that
the trucking area would be located directly next to him, wekl its
true it would be next to his boundary line however, its probably
300 feet from my planned office to his boundary line and another
200 feet over to his house. So there would be dose to 500 feet
from where his home is located. Mrs. Carter commented on
I don't have that right here, however I don't see the Planning
Commission should be descriminatory against small businessmen
moving in there apparently which it seems to be, it seems they
have as much right to move into the area as large business firms.
Once small business has started into the area there may be many
more follow so to zone it or leave it unzoned or to deny the petition
merely against small business against large business is surely
discriminatory.
10
Mr. Houtchens: I would like to make a little rebuttal remark. There is one
family down in the area there, I will not get into personalities
or names which has a nice home a rather large stable where a
number of horses are kept. Now this situation with the horses
has caused the neighbors no end of grief but what Bill Stevens
tends to do on this 5 acre tract would not be as obnoxious to
the people of the area or as detrimental to their property
as the horses, now I need not tell you that these people
are in opposition to this proposition. Now Mr. Olson complains
that his property might decrease if Mr. Stevens sold land
conversly the value of his land might increase tremendously
its about 6 of 1 and half dozen of another, this is mere guess
you know what Bill Stevens tends to do and his immediate intentions
are not to sell it. He has purchased it for an investment and
tends to develop it and use it himself. Now then this business
about not having a tavern in the neighborhood, I have no desire
to live in a neighborhood with a tavern either but I have been
around long enough in the law business to know I would rather
go have 4 wisdom teeth pulled on the same day than I would
have to make an appearance before this Board of County Commissioners
to get a license out of them, it is just practically impossible.
Likewise if a man does have a tavern license it is not the easiest
thing in the world to get a license transferred to a new location
So your fears about a tavern can be allayed. This Board of County
Commissioners have been very receptive to complaints of neighbors
complaining about taverns in the neighborhood. Now Mr. Mosiers
remarks are the. things that concern me the most. First of all
he complains that Mr. Stevens did not come down to make a complaint
when they had their hearings on this, yes Mr. Stevens did't he was
negligent and he is sorry to put you to all this trouble but at
11
the same time you have provision for a change of zoning in this
area and that is what he is following, that is what he is here on.
He should not be penalized simply because he did not make his
complaint several months ago, he is making it now and he is
asking you to change it - the property that will be useful to
him. Now Mr. Mosier says that we want industrial effort that
will be worthy of the area. I suppose that Mr. Mosier that anyone
with 20, 60 80 acres in this area would be a person of sufficient
property to give us an industry worthy of the area in other words
you want a Stokley Van Camp. How many Stokley Van Camps are there?
There aren't very many of those plants in this area, Most of those
plants are small plants employing less than 8 people. These
are the desirable things. You get a small plant employing less
than 8 people you don't get a large fluctuation in unemployment.
As I recall the rates on it the history of business with less
than 8 people have practically no unemployment. So really those
are the desirable industries rather than the undesirable ones.
Now this area he says is too small to be of any value to be
rezoned to the area only to Mr. Stevens, with this I take extreme
opposition. I am sure Mr. Mosier is sincere in his thoughts on it
this is two city blocks, there is a lot of different types of
business that could go on here, there is plenty of set back
from all the streets. What Mr. Bill Stevens intends to do down
there wouln't damage Mr. Olson, and it woun't damage any of his
other neighbors. It certainly woun't damage the little areas
to the east and south the H and H Subdivision and the Carter area
This petition because Mr. Stevens is a small businessman should
be looked upon with favor. I think we are here before the Board
of County Commissioners to ask that you do favor the small businessman
12
and that you do listen to his complaint and allow him to ap ahead
and operate his small business to his benefit which will untimately
result in the benefit of every resident of this town.
Mr. Stevens: I would like to add that the trucks. will be out of town for
a week or more at a time, the idea of the trucking business
is to keep the wheels rolling so most of the time they will be
out and the people in the area will hardly notice any difference
in the activity that we create in the area. I see no reason
for them to feel that the trucking industry will cause a
great loss to his land. Anyone driving by there would not
notice it being there.
Mr. Shultz: Thank you. Are there anymore comments?
Mr. Oslon: I think I attended all the meetings the Planning Board had
it seemed so at that time most of them were in favor of the "A"
zoning and that is why the Planning Board put it that way and
there didn't seem to be much opposition at that time. So I
don't see why it shouldn't stay in that group. We are all
happy out the=e the way it is. My neighbors and I would
like to see it that way. I think if the Planning Board had
not seen it that way they would not have made it that way. There
must have been a majority that wanted it in agriculture.
Mr. Shultz: Are there any more comments? Either way for or against we are
ready to listen. Mr. Shumaker of Burlincjton Railway do you have
any comments?
Mr. Shoemak e: None that we haven't present to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Reed: I don't believe so I have listened to all the evidence, Mr. Stevens
and proponedits. I think I could take exception to one statement
that Mr. Olson made. The Planning Commission did zone it to the
recommendations at the time as "f "Agriculture because it was never
zoned and they had to take a step to get it zoned and at that time
that is why they zoned it "A"
l8
In my opinion that did not mean that it was forever to stay
Mr. Stevens is acting mow to get a change that is permissible
Mr. Shultz:
under the laws of this county, if its agreeable to the majority.
The Board of Commissioners will take the testimoney and evidence
under advisement and will make an attempt to make our very best
judgement of what we have heard here today. We will render our
decision as soon as possible. I want to thank all of you for
your particiaption here today and feel welcome to come anytime.
Deputy County Clerk
Hello