My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/1/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
10/1/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:19 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:46:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/01/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
F <br />OCT 1 BOOK `47 Fa,F 673 <br />Heath noted that there are people in this neighborhood <br />building homes in the $200,000 range, and he did not feel 2h <br />acres would be a shortage of property on which to build such <br />a single residential unit. Attorney Heath emphasized that <br />he has been intimately familiar with this community for a <br />good many years and no one is trying to downgrade or in any <br />way detract from the quality or appearance of the Fellsmere <br />community. Attorney Heath urged that the Board give Ditch <br />j 20 to Ditch 22 south and from the boundary line over to <br />Park Lateral an RR designation. <br />Mike Hagman, owner of a cattle feed lot on Ditch 20, <br />was not in favor of putting two houses on every five acres <br />and having residential too near agricultural, which he felt <br />would give rise to complaints about the odors from his feed <br />lot. <br />Jack Powell, resident of Ditch 20, also opposed RR for <br />this area noting that those who built $200,000 homes in this <br />area did it for privacy and they want to keep it <br />agricultural. Mr. Powell also expressed concern about the <br />effect of such a designation on the water situation. <br />Discussion continued re having further RR in this area, <br />and Mrs. Wilson noted that quite a bit of the land in this <br />area has been sold in tracts of 5 acres and larger, and <br />these people are concerned. <br />Ray Scent, local realtor, commented that if the records <br />are checked, you will find that many of these so-called 5 <br />acre tracts actually are 4.6 and 4.8 acres, and it may well <br />be that you could not build on them without a variance. <br />Discussion ensued in this regard. <br />Attorney Health agreed that Mr. Scent is correct that <br />in all the old tracts, they excluded the roads and ditches`"" <br />and did not dedicate them, and, consequently, many owners in <br />most of the areas under discussion tonight would come up <br />slightly short of a gross 5 acres. He felt this could be <br />covered in the zoning Code by a Special Exception which <br />would save a lot of time and trouble for everyone. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.