Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />*A <br />? <br />MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING <br />Village of Mayfield <br />May 4, 1972 <br />The Council of the Village of Mayfield met at a Public Hearing at Mayfield <br />Village Hall on Thursday' May 4, 1972 at 8:10 pam., Mayor Robert G. Beebe9 <br />presided. <br />Roll Call: Present: Messrs. Boger, Bordonaro, Braun, Davis and Leech, <br />Absent: Mr. Schmidt <br />Also present were Mr. Edelman and Mrs. Maynarde <br />Mayor Beebe opened the hearing by stating that this is an open hearing <br />and that council members are here to hear proponents and opponents. <br />Mro Edelman stated that pursuant to notice in the newspaper of a Public <br />Hearing, it is being heldias required by law on proposed Ordinance //71-37 <br />and Ordinance #72-7. Notices urere sent to abutting property owners. <br />ORDINANCE #71-3?, Entitled: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE <br />OF THE VILLAGE OF MAYFIELD BY TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PROPERTY ABUTTING <br />SeOM. CENTER ROAD AND SANDALWOOD DRIVE TO A CLA,SS U-3 (APARTP+ENT HOUSE) <br />USE DISTRICT." <br />Proponents: <br />Mr, Roland FSraier, 742 Butternut: "Our concern is right now. It should <br />be passed allowing the apartment zoning." The two lots adjoining Mre Van <br />Curen's lots are short lots and not suitable for commercial development. <br />Abutting apartment house zoning is there now and the only real good use <br />of the land, as there is nothing to maintain the residential zoning that <br />is there now. This zoning protects us. Sandalwood is not a commercial <br />sbreet. It is residential," <br /> <br />Mro Robert Kreckel, 552 Zorn Lane: "I think we have an overabundance of <br />commercial property now surrounding the village due to the many stores. <br />More are moving out than moving in. Very unhappy about it except the <br />store owners. The proper use of the land' for the trelfare of the village, <br />is apartments." <br />Mr. James Smith, 737 Sandalwood Drive: "I would like the minutes to show <br />that there are approximately 36 residents of the village in the audience. <br />The vast majority of these people are in favor of rezoning this property. <br />Regional Planning Commission, employed to make a specific study, recom- <br />mended that it be rezoned to multiple family. Village already has re- <br />tail zoning. Within a block we have a retail business area. The important <br />reason we are in favor of rezoning is that the planned commescial use of <br />this property would entail exit for trucks on Sandalwood Drive 24, in <br />uridth. The semi-trucks that would service these retail stores would have <br />to maneuver their trucks in this street. The CitizenQS Master Plan Com-- <br />mittee have also recommended that the area be rezoned for multa.-family <br />use. It was zoned for stores a good many years ago. It is now adjacent <br />to a fine residential community. Three sides for residential use and only <br />?