My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/9/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
10/9/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:20 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:34:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/09/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
area, many are in decline and not being replanted. While he was opposed to rezoning viable <br />agricultural land to residential, he did not consider the area in question to be viable. Those <br />who do have viable groves near residential areas are subject to civil suit. He had previously <br />met with County Planning and Legal staff concerning his property and changing the <br />Comprehensive Plan and he was told there was "no way" it would happen. He mentioned <br />he will lose a row of 20 -year old oak trees he had planted to provide right-of-way for <br />widening 66' Avenue. He believed a pocket of agricultural zoning has been created which <br />is surrounded by development of greater density and thought it was time to look at rezoning <br />the area. He favored one -acre lots or something in that range. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge inquired if there are plans to extend 1611 Street to the west <br />and Director Keating advised that College Lane serves that purpose and is much safer. <br />Leat Kromhout, 4150 S.W. 11' Place, spoke of his concerns about the traffic impact <br />of the new church on 12�k Street at 58t` Avenue and he recalled the predictions from a year <br />and a half ago. He believed we are not ready for even more changes in that area. First, <br />something needs to be done at each of the intersections because of the problem turning onto <br />58' Avenue. He believed 4 -lanes on 58' Avenue is not the solution, perhaps it is necessary <br />to put traffic lights at each intersection. He predicted that approval of the request before <br />them would further exacerbate the traffic problem. He agreed that agricultural zoning in this <br />area was a "holding zone". It is a transitional area which is going to change and we cannot <br />stop it. The issue is how and how fast the Board is going to allow it to change and what will <br />be done to prepare for the change. He thought transportation planning has been seriously <br />lacking. Everyone agrees that the area will develop; but consideration must be given to <br />efforts to slow it down and help agriculture hold on a little longer. He recalled attending a <br />Palm Beach County Commission meeting in 1985 on the Ag Reserve Area. Their Ag area <br />was very similar to the general area in question. He stated that Palm Beach County funded <br />October 9, 2000 <br />17 <br />BK 115 PG 372 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.