My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/21/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
3/21/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:03:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/21/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COMMISSIONER WHO SPOKE SO VEHEMENTLY AGAINST THE PROPOSED REZONING <br />STATED THAT YOU CAN T PAY OVER $1,000 AN ACRE FOR CITRUS, MR. KEEN S <br />TAX BILLS SET A VALUE OF $2,600 AN ACRE. FURTHER, BECAUSE OF THE <br />ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE CITRUS BUSINESS TODAY, 80 ACRES IS NOT REALLY <br />AN ECONOMICAL UNIT FOR A COMMERCIAL GROWER. MR. COOKSEY NOTED THAT <br />THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFT IN THE CITRUS LANDS FROM THE EARLIEST YEARS, AND <br />THE BIG COMMERCIAL GROWERS HAVE GONE FROM THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE OUT TO <br />THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. HE FELT WE HAVE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THIS METAMOR- <br />PHOSIS AND STATED THAT HE FEELS THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED FOR COUNTRY <br />HOME PLOTS. ATTORNEY COOKSEY STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE 4 TO I <br />VOTE SHOULD PREJUDICE THIS COMMISSION. HE POINTED.OUT THAT WHILE A <br />PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER STATED THAT THIS LAND IS PRIME CITRUS, <br />HE CAN GET HIS CLIENT TO TESTIFY THAT IT IS NOT. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED,IF THEY ARE CONTENDING THAT THIS <br />LAND IS NOT PRIME CITRUS LAND, WHY IS IT THAT PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE <br />VICINITY HAS BEEN NEWLY PLANTED IN CITRUS. <br />ATTORNEY COOKSEY EXPLAINED THAT PROPERTY OVER THE YEARS WAS <br />SOLD TO CHARLIE GOLLNICK AND HIS WIFE. HIS WIFE WANTS TO TRAIN HORSES <br />OUT THERE, AND THEY ARE UTILIZING THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY BY PLANTING <br />RED GRAPEFRUIT. » <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THE CITRUS OPERATION IS THE <br />SECONDARY USE OF THE LAND, AND .JOEL KEEN EXPLAINED ABOUT REBEDDING OF <br />THE GROVE. HE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN THE GROVE BUSINESS ALL OF HIS <br />LIFE AND REPLANTING ESCALATES REAL HIGH; IT JUST IS NOT ECONOMICALLY <br />FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SELL THE PROPERTY <br />UNDER DISCUSSION AND GET BACK INTO AGRICULTURE. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF HE HAD DONE ANY REPLANTING IN <br />THIS GROVE, AND MR, KEEN STATED THAT WHEN HE GOT DIVORCED, HIS WIFE GOT <br />THE NEW GROVE AND HE GOT THE OLD ONE, AND IT WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR <br />REPLANTING.. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD, <br />PENNY MICHAUD INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE.HAS A.HOUSE JUST <br />NORTHWEST OF THIS PROPERTY. SHE FELT WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF NEED TO <br />50 <br />BOOK 39 PAGE 300 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.