Laserfiche WebLink
MIN[1TES OF TNF PROCEEDINGS <br />OF TF <br />HUGO PLANNING CO.17ISSIOP? <br />August 8, 1979 <br />The regular meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Peltier at <br />8:20 PM. <br />PRESENT: Peloquin, Hanson, Greger, Houle, McAllister and Peltier <br />Peloquin made motion, seconded by McAllister, to approve the minutes <br />of July 25, 1979, after the changes have been made: <br />Page 1 (6th paragraph) — he would have to contend with parking <br />problems again. <br />age 1 (8th paragraph) — Greger could not agree with spot rezoning <br />All aye. I -lotion Carried. <br />McAllister made motion, seconded by Peloquin, to approve the minutes <br />of the Special Meeting of July 25, 1979, after the following change <br />is made: <br />I!cAllister was present at the meeting. He arrived at 6:17 PM. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />BENSON KENI17J.-S — AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT <br />'Mayne Tauer, Suburban Engineering, presented the Commission with the <br />results of the new perc tests. Tom Crever, Building Inspector, sub— <br />mitted a report stating that he found the results of the perc test <br />to be favorable for a standard septic tank/drain field installation. <br />The area tested lies about 400-450' from the proposed building site, <br />but as there is approximately 10' of drop in elevation towards the <br />tested area, there should be no special problems. <br />McAllister made motion, seconded by Peloquin, to recommend approval <br />of the Amended Special Use Permit for Fred Benson and Jeff Barbour. <br />VOTING FOR: Peloquin, Greger, Houle, McAlliser and Peltier <br />ABSTAINED: Hanson <br />Motion Carried. <br />CURT LEIBEL & V1 LPH CHESEBROUGH — SPECIAL USE PERPIIT <br />McAllister stated that the City Council denied the rezoning request <br />of Darrell Tavernier at their meeting of August 6, 1979, and moved <br />that the application be returned and the .^35.00 fee be refunded. <br />Mr. Chesebrough claimed that he was unaware there was a City Council <br />meeting on the 6th, and was not provided with a written notice. Mr. <br />Chesebrough questioned what is considered an intensification, and <br />McAllister stated the business could stay in operation as was there <br />when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted on December 31, 1974. <br />