04-05-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 5, 1983 -7- 6. HUTCHINSON REZONING: - Ray Marshall, City Attorney - as desirable as the preservation i of agricultural land is, do not believe it is a legally l enforceable or sustainable approach, unless the City wants to enter into a policy of,;purchasing land for ag preservation. Appears Mr. Hutchinson ha.s a legal right to develop the property in conformance with the City's Comp Plan and Ordinance. If the City attempts to prevent this it does so at its own peril and risks the potential of responsibility for damages. No development of this magnitude can be allowed without imposed conditions - any approval should be made with all the appropriate conditions that are necessary to protect the public health, welfare and safety. Cannot answer specifically how to preserve agricultural land - legally, do not think, the City can require:ag preservation based in posture with this particular proposal. - Eder - see it impossible to deny based on the facts given. Think have sufficiently, over the years, developed a zoning code, have screening ordinances, have multitude of regulations that will have to be applied when considering site and building plans. These must all be met before the development can proceed. In terms of rezoning see no alternative for the Council . - Fraser - no justifiable reason to deny and support that reason legally. Would be great to maintain as ag land - but cannot deny the owner the right to use his property. City has contributed publicly through Green Acres and Ag Preserves to encourage people to retain ag land - this is an individual owner choice. Surface water - these,:requirements will have to be met.at the appropriate time. Negative issue is that it will be noisier for the neighbors. Will be less pleasant sight to look upon - but do not see way to avoid. Positive issues include putting a facility of this type in a: zone where little else could be used. Will also provide additional tax base and jobs for the City. Belive the pluses outweigh the minuses. - Mazzara - shared Frasers' and Eders' position - Eder - noise and screening can be addressed during the engineering process. - Russ Kirby - noted that although the Council cannot deny on the basis of preserving agricultural land - believe proposal could be denied if the Council felt there was an impairment of health, safety and welfare. Concerned that the Council is taking action before any input is received from Valley Branch - one of the big problems in this area is drainage. This action should come before Council action. - Eder - explained City requirement that no more water may leave the site after development than before. Their engineering must confirm and prove that this regulation will be enforced. - Attorney Marshall - This is a request for rezoning. Valley Branch has no authority in the area of zoning and/or land use. Nothing, at this point, for VBWD to review until a site and building plan is developed for review by the City and them.