My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/6/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
2/6/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:48 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:17:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/06/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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
Boos 97 PAE205 <br />still predominantly agricultural land. He realized that all of it <br />eventually will be developed, but until that time comes, they <br />should be allowed to operate as a citrus venture. He had a problem <br />with the statement that once development comes in there, aerial <br />spraying would be out. He didn't think that was quite the case. <br />If it is, they might as well hang it up right now. Mr. Elliott <br />just wanted to voice his opinion on this issue and he thanked the <br />Board for their consideration. <br />Chairman Adams expressed concern about aerial spraying being <br />too close to the homes because of the drift, and Mr. Elliott gave <br />assurance that the material used is very, very safe and it doesn't <br />harm anyone. However, there are people out there that are <br />concerned about everything, sometimes a little more so than they <br />should. He just didn't feel that we can say that aerial spraying <br />would have to stop completely. <br />Chairman Adams just didn't want our Code Enforcement people <br />put in the position of having to chase planes down because aerial <br />sprays fell on someone's house or etched their cars. That is her <br />concern. <br />There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Adams <br />closed the Public Hearing. <br />Commissioner Macht stated he would move approval of staff's <br />recommendation if the wording in Condition #5 was changed by adding <br />a period after "prohibited within the Trails End Subdivision" and <br />deleting "with said prohibition enforceable through the county code <br />enforcement board." <br />A brief discussion ensued on whether or not to include <br />"enforceable through the county code enforcement board." <br />Commissioner Tippin commented that it was fine for the County <br />to spend money in their efforts to bring in new industry, but he <br />felt we also should be protecting the existing citrus industry. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that one of the major objectives in <br />the Comp Plan is to protect agriculture. She felt that in this <br />case, where the development is totally surrounded by citrus and the <br />owner of the development willing to participate in this, we should <br />go ahead with just the way it is recommended. <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised -that the special <br />conditions protect the public, whereas deed restrictions protect <br />the internal people; therefore, he felt that Code Enforcement is <br />the proper method of enforcement for special conditions. Code <br />Enforcement protects the general public. <br />Chairman Adams asked if would still bring Code Enforcement <br />34 <br />FEBRUARY 6, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.