DCPREZ-0000-06061 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 8. 1994 / TO: Blooming Grove Town Board FROM: Steve Glass, Chair, Blooming Grove Plan Commission RE: Approval of Rogers/Hoover rezone petition 6061 Dear Sirs: On Thursday October 6, 1994, the Town of Blooming Grove Plan Commission approved the rezoning of 16.91 acres on Hwy AB from A- 1 (ag exclusive) to C-2 for the purpose of constructing mini storage warehouses on 5-6 acres of the total rezoned. The vote was 3- 1 of the members present and 3-2,counting the proxy no vote of Commission member Chuck Deadman. I request that the Town Board reconsider this approval, and if you do reconsider it, I urge you to overturn the Plan Commission's approval. Because I will be unable to attend the Board's meeting on Oct. 1 1 , I am making this request in writing. In my view, the Commission's approval was an inappropriate decision because it is inconsistent with the Town's Land Use Plan. Even a cursory examination of the Town's Land Use Plan or the Land Use Plan Map will show that the proposed Rogers/Hoover project violates the Plan on at least:31x Counts: ► ,enco The project is not in an area where the Town says commercial development should be 1 . aged, p. 5. 2. The rezoned land is beyond the urban service area, and thus on land where development is to be discouraged, p. 6. 0.F\yvy\K 3. The rezoned area is zoned Ag Exclusive because of the Town's goal to preserve farm land, pp. I �� 7,8. 4. The proposed project would be in a resource protection area pp. 9, 10. In addition, the th,tet.,4 project would be adjacent to a large, sensitive wetland that could be harmed if proper t precautions are not taken during construction. The wetland likely would suffer from increased ' M runoff due to increased impermeable surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. 5. ". . . development along identified collector and arterial (HWY AB) roads sould be discouraged." p. 4. 6. "When land is rezoned to permit certain types of development,only that portion of land necessary for the requested use shall be rezoned", p.4. The only requested use is for construction , of mini-warehouses on 5-6 acres of the 16.91 rezoned. The remaining lots would be sold to ci other developers for unknown uses. Although the owner/developer have cited many different potential uses, they are not able to say with the slightest degree of certainty what those uses X 'would be. In my view,and the views of others familiar with sound lend use planning practices, the only 6.„ basis on which to make a decision regarding a rezone petition is its consistency with the land use \, plan. For this reason, the approval of the Rogers/Hoover rezone petition was flawed. Those who favor rezoning have offered counter arguments. I would suggest they, too,are flawed. Specifically: 1. The Town Land Use Plan is no longer valid because it is two years old. Two years is not old for a land use plan.