Laserfiche WebLink
HAS BEEN CLEARED AND IS PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND VACANT. MISS <br />RENNA NOTED THAT THIS PARCEL IS PART OF AN. SO ACRE TRACT WHICH WAS <br />REZONED FROM A TO R-lE LAST MARCH 21, 1979, UNDER A PREVIOUS OWNER. <br />THE APPLICANT WISHES TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IS <br />IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THE PLANNING & ZONING <br />COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE REZONING UNANIMOUSLY. <br />CHARLES SULLIVAN, JR., ATTORNEY, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD <br />REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, KENNETH MACKENZIE, AND REQUESTED THAT <br />THE BOARD APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COM- <br />MISSION. HE NOTED THIS PARCEL IS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE, AND <br />IS PART OF AN 80 ACRE TRACT WHICH IS THE ONLY R-lE IN THIS AGRICUL- <br />TURAL AREA, WHICH IS WITHIN THE PRIMARY CITRUS REGION. MR. SULLIVAN <br />STATED THAT IT IS MR. MACKENZIE'S INTENT TO REPLANT THE GROVE AND <br />PUT THE LAND BACK INTO ITS ORIGINAL USE, WHICH HE FELT WOULD BENEFIT <br />THE AREA. HE NOTED THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION ANYONE HAS RAISED IS IN <br />REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF MR. MACKENZIE PUTTING IN A DOG KENNEL. <br />HE STATED THAT MR. MACKENZIE DOES NOT HAVE THE INTENTION OF PUTTING <br />IN A DOG KENNEL OR AN ATTACK DOG SCHOOL. THE ONLY DOGS HE PLANS ON <br />HAVING ARE HIS OWN PRIVATE PETS; HE MAY BREED DOGS, BUT NO MORE THAN <br />ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL OWNER. MR. SULLIVAN FELT THAT MR. MACKENZIE'S <br />PROPOSAL IS ADMIRABLE AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. <br />ATTORNEY SAM BLOCK APPEARED REPRESENTING HIMSELF AS AN <br />OWNER OF FIVE ACRES IN THIS AREA. HE COMMENTED THAT THE USES MR. <br />SULLIVAN HAS PRESENTED AS BEING MR. MACKENZIE'S INTENT CAN BE CARRIED <br />OUT UNDER THE PRESENT ZONING - HE CAN HAVE A GROVE, BUILD HIS HOUSE, <br />AND HAVE HIS DOGS - SO WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO REZONE BACK TO <br />AGRICULTURAL? MR, BLOCK FELT, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, THAT IF THE <br />BOARD CONTINUES TO FLIP-FLOP BACK AND FORTH WITH ZONING YEAR AFTER <br />YEAR, THERE IS A SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE ZONING LAWS ARE <br />USED FOR. HE SAW NO REASON WHY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION SHOULD BE <br />ZONED BACK TO AGRICULTURAL, ESPECIALLY AFTER BEING REZONED TO R-lE <br />SUCH A SHORT TIME AGO. <br />67 <br />600x 43� ��,� 210 <br />SPR 919�� <br />