Laserfiche WebLink
ABOUT 1934 AND STAYED THAT WAY UNTIL THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. HE <br />NOTED THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS MOSTLY COUNTRY HOMES, AND ITS <br />CHARACTER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS TRANSITIONAL. ATTORNEY COOKSEY STATED <br />THAT THEY FEEL THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS LAND IS R-lE,-WHICH IS <br />WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE <br />PLAN ADOPTED IN 1976 SHOWS THE NORTHERN HALF IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, <br />AND FURTHER NOTED THAT THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDIED THIS <br />APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED TO R-lE. <br />ATTORNEY COOKSEY COMMENTED THAT WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED AND IT <br />WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO GET APPROVAL TO <br />ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS VOTED NOT TO <br />ALLOW A PUBLIC HEARING. THE HEARING WAS HELD, HOWEVER, AND THERE WERE <br />NO OBJECTIONS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OR ANYONE ELSE, ATTORNEY <br />COOKSEY CONTINUED THAT AT THIS HEARING, HE MADE HIS PRESENTATION AND <br />MR. REDICK SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED REZONING; HE COMMENTED THAT <br />THEY WERE ASKED NO QUESTIONS AT ALL, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />ONE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS THEN SPOKE AT LENGTH OF HIS <br />PERSONAL OBJECTION TO REZONING CITRUS LAND TO'HOME SITES, STATING THAT <br />THIS WAS PRIME CITRUS AND HE FELT IT SHOULD NOT BE REZONED. ONE OF THE <br />OTHER ZONING COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP THE PROBLEM OF TRAFFIC IN SPITE <br />OF THE FACT THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD STATED THE PROPOSED'DENSITY <br />WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE TRAFFIC. ATTORNEY COOKSEY CONTINUED <br />THAT ANOTHER COMMISSIONER STATED THAT HE AGREED WITH THE SPEAKER, BUT <br />DID NOT DELINEATE; A FOURTH COMMISSIONER WAS UNCLEAR; AND THE FIFTH <br />COMMISSIONER VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED REZONING. <br />ATTORNEY COOKSEY POINTED OUT THAT THE FAMILY WHO OWNS THIS <br />LAND ARE AND HAVE BEEN CITRUS PEOPLE FOR MANY LONG YEARS, AND THEY HAVE i <br />CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO KEEP <br />THIS PROPERTY IN CITRUS BECAUSE OF THE SOIL CONDITIONS AND THAT IT WAS <br />NECESSARY TO BULLDOZE IT OUT. ATTORNEY COOKSEY CONTINUED THAT THE <br />"CITRUS LINE, "WHICH WAS GIVING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS <br />TROUBLEIWILL BE MOVED TO THE WEST UNDER THE NEW PLAN, AND -THE SUBJECT <br />PROPERTY WILL NOT BE IN THAT CITRUS AREA. HE NOTED THAT THE ZONING <br />49 <br />MAR 2 11979 <br />BOOK 39 PAGE 299 <br />