My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/4/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:18:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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 M M <br />The Chairman believed rf we proceed in the way suggested, we have <br />abandoned part of our right to change it back, and while this <br />development can have very positive impacts, he felt it also can <br />have negative impacts. <br />Commissioner Scurlock commented that the soil analysis <br />definitely seems to indicate that this property never has been <br />something that could be actively pursued as an agricultural <br />interest, and if we make the decision that it is not usable in an <br />economic way as agriculture, he felt it is then incumbent on the <br />Commission to grant some use to this property. <br />Commissioner Bird did not totally agree that this property <br />is'unusable as far as citrus is concerned. He pointed out that <br />there are producing groves on the west, east and south of it, <br />which properties have basically the same characteristics as the <br />subject property. He therefore, had reason to believe this land <br />could be made into a producing grove by ditching and diking, and <br />according to Doug Bournique of the Citrus League there will be a <br />great demand for citrus land in this County as soon as the canker <br />problem is cleared up and nursery stock becomes available. <br />Commissioner Bird emphasized that he was not saying that groves <br />have to go on that property, but that he did not think it is fair <br />to say that it is unusable for agricultural purposes. He <br />continued that the major problem he has with the proposed cha-nge <br />is that it represents such a drastic deviation from the <br />Comprehensive Plan which we spent seven years developing. While <br />he had no question that this would be a beautiful project of the <br />type we would want to encourage, it definitely would leapfrog, <br />and he did feel there should be a more logical consistent way to <br />develop than jumping two miles over agricultural lands out into a <br />rural area of the County and then trying to in -fill. He stressed <br />that one of the main goals of the Comprehensive Plan was to <br />prevent urban sprawl and in -fill the areas where services are <br />available, and he was concerned what message it would send to all <br />the other developers in the county if we made such a jump. <br />45 <br />D E c 41985 BOOK FA UE 917 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.