4/18/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 18 1994 p00K 56 FACE 75� Ralph Evans, attorney representing applicant Robert Newman, presented arguments to have the Board approve his client's request to have 80 acres redesignated from AG, Agricultural to RR -2, Rural Residential 2 for the purpose of building single family homes on one -acre lots. Referring to a map of the area, he pointed out that the subject property is presently in citrus. The property to the north is also citrus, to the east is pasture land, to the south vacant property, and immediately west and adjacent to the subject property is the Aerodrome Subdivision on which single-family homes are built on and around a runway system. Attorney Evans then offered the following arguments to support RR -2 as the highest and best use of the subject property, emphasizing that one of the owners of the subject property has extensive citrus holdings, and, therefore, he believed this owner would have better and more expert knowledge than staff as to what this property should best be used for. The primary reason Attorney Evans felt the Planning & Zoning Commission decision should be reversed is that there is an existing residential subdivision immediately adjacent to the subject property, and although staff takes the position that it is designated as agriculture, it is, indeed, a subdivision. He noted that one of the arguments presented against having a development of single-family, one -acre homesites is that it would require an extension of urban area facilities, i.e., sewer, water, police and fire protection, -etc.; however, the people who want the Rural Residential in order to move out of the urban area into the country are fully aware they will have to take care of their own sewage and provide their own water. He further pointed out that there is a commercial/industrial node within one-half mile of the subject property and he assumed there would be services provided in that area to people who live 19 M