Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS <br />OF THE <br />HUGO PLANNING CODWISSION <br />May 11, 1983 <br />The public hearing began at 7:30 PM regarding the Ella Caruth <br />rezoning. No residents were in attendance to comment. The <br />public hearing was closed at 8:00 PM. <br />Gerald Schoeller was sworn in by Mr. Lorch prior to the meeting. <br />The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Lorch <br />at 8: 01 PT.?. <br />PRESENT: Lorch, Fashingbauer, Potts, Schoeller , Atkinson <br />ABSENT: Hansen, Jacobsen <br />Motion made by Fashingbauer, seconded by Potts to approve the <br />minutes of April 27, 1983 after the following correction is <br />made; Mr. Grangers request for rezoning was denied because of <br />the lot size requirement, which is 12,000 sq. ft. for a multiple <br />dwelling, his lot is only 7,950 sq. ft. <br />Robert Dotte - Rezoning <br />Mr. Dotte would like to combine 19 a. and a 1 A. parcel into <br />two 10 A. parcels. It is now zoned Conservancy. He would pre- <br />fer to rezone to Industrial rather that Agriculture. His in- <br />tention is to build pallets on the property. However with <br />the Caruth rezoning his property would now border Conservancy. <br />A public hearing will be set for June 8, at 7:30 PM. At the <br />time of publication one or both zones will be considered. <br />The question was raised of a shortage of land under Ag. if there <br />is an easement (8,000 sq. Ft.). This could be handled with <br />a variance at the proper time. <br />Caruth - Rezoning <br />Mark blooding was present to address any questions. He stated <br />it was the twenty acres on the west of the section to be rezoned. <br />No residents were present to object to the rezoning. <br />Motion made by Fashingbauer, seconded by Potts to recommend <br />approval of rezoning 20 acres from industrial to conservancy. <br />All aye. Motion carried. <br />Shackle - Stewart - Minor subdivision <br />Lee Stewart (father of Angela Shackle) stated he was granted <br />a private easement when he originally purchased the property. <br />The number of families using the easement was questioned and <br />whether this is a legally dedicated easement. It was suggested <br />that the attorney and City engineer view the proposal. the <br />easement is maintained by the home owners at this time. <br />Notion made by Potts, seconded by Fashingbauer to recommend <br />approval of the minor subdivision(one lot) subject to approval <br />by the City Attorney and City Engineer regarding the legality <br />of the easement. Thr. Atkinson questioned the legality of an <br />