My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/06/2007 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2007
>
03/06/2007 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2022 12:19:59 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:56:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/06/2007
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
3130
Book and Page
132, 418-488
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
o 0 <br />enough to be issued and protected in the contract, which is laid out to protect the interest of the <br />landowner Another concern for Mr Paladin was the pumping of polluted water east to our <br />Lagoon. He believed there were enough questions to put a haze over this and urged the Board to <br />deny the request, get some representation together, and get the Attorneys office working on this <br />so we know what it is we are getting into. <br />Attorney Collins expounded on the issue of private ownership. He noted that if <br />there is privately owned property we could not take it from agriculture to conservation without <br />affecting or taking the property rights. He felt the basis question before the Board was, "Is this <br />property more appropriate in agricultural designation or conservation designation <br />Commissioner O'Bryan asked Director Keating if agricultural activities were <br />allowed in a CON -1 land use designation for zoning. Director Keating said agricultural activities <br />would be allowed if they are existing non -conforming uses and they were not allowed as <br />permitted uses or special exception uses in the district. The land use designation indicates that <br />CON -1 is limited to conservation uses and passive recreational uses. <br />Renee Renzi, Waverly Place, agreed with implications alluded to by Mr Paladin, <br />although it seemed complex and she did not understand all the ramifications. After she learned <br />that Fellsmere Joint Venture was a private corporation with no relation to the City of Fellsmere, <br />she felt we should not be making far-reaching changes in zoning to benefit a private corporation. <br />Richard Carnell, Attorney representing Fellsmere Joint Venture, 1550 56`h Court, <br />at the request of Commissioner Flescher, elaborated on the scope of services provided by FJV <br />and pointed out that FJV is a citrus company that has been in agriculture and in operation for 40 <br />years, and are not developers. He briefly described contributions of land (24,000 acres) his <br />Company has made over the last 40 to various causes. He did not think it was legally prudent to <br />suggest that Fellsmere Joint Venture buy a landlocked piece of property. <br />March 6, 2007 31 <br />8 � 2 PG 466 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.