My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/1/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
5/1/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:05:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/01/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
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
"m <br />Ej <br />GOING TO BE THERE CONTINUALLY,,,TO CHANGE THAT LAND FROM <br />AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS TO'DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL. HE <br />WENT ON TO SPEAK ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DRI PROCESS WHICH <br />WOULD HOLD DEVELOPMENT DOWN TO 700 UNITS, AND BELIEVED ANY DEVELOPER <br />WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT TRYING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY AND HAVE TO <br />RESUBMIT BEFORE THE STATE. HE BELIEVED WE DO HAVE A CERTAIN <br />OBLIGATION TO A PROPERTY OWNER TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY TO THE <br />HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT <br />SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE DID LEND SOME <br />WEIGHT TO THE FACTS GARNERED FROM THE SOIL SURVEY PRESENTED.AS <br />WELL AS THE OPINIONS OF TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO BELIEVE THE AREA <br />WILL NOT REMAIN IN AGRICULTURE, WHETHER R—IMP IS THE BEST USE <br />OR NOT. HE POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY THE PRO- <br />POSED REZONING AND CONSIDER REZONING TO ANOTHER CATEGORY AT SOME <br />OTHER TIME, AND SINCE HE HAD A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSED <br />REZONING BECAUSE OF THE MULTITUDE OF DIVERGENT OPINIONS HE HAD <br />RECEIVED, HE WOULD,THEREFORE, VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING <br />REQUEST. <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER GAVE IMPORTANCE FIRST TO -THE FACT <br />THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS -LAND IS NEUTRAL AND SECOND TO THE <br />STATEMENT MADE BY ATTORNEY HERZOG THAT THE ONE REASON WE MIGHT <br />PRESENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE IS THAT.IT IS A BONA FIDE <br />THREAT TO THE SURROUNDING LAND AND CITIZENS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER <br />REALIZED THAT DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE -HAS TO BE BALANCED WITH THE <br />PRESSURE EXERTED BY PEOPLE WHO -LIVE THERE, BUT STATED HE -WAS <br />PREPARED TO MAKE A JUDGMENT BASED ON HIS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE IN THE <br />COUNTY, HE KNEW IN HIS GUT THAT 1268 PEOPLE IMPACTED IN AN AREA <br />AS PROPOSED WILL AFFECT THE WATER SITUATION OUT THERE, AND THE <br />DROUGHT WE,ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW IS A PRIME REASON WHY WE NEED TO <br />START -ADDRESSING THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTY IN -REGARD TO THE -NATURAL <br />RESOURCES WE NEED TO SURVIVE. - <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER-FLETCHER, SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSI.ONER SCURLOCK, THAT THE REQUEST FOR -REZONING THE SEXTON <br />GROVES PROPERTY AS ADVERTISED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO R—lMP BE DENIED <br />MAY- 6 1981. - 57 BOOK -. 46PaAW <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.