2/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB I � 1990 v � BOOK F"uE 1. me to be inappropriate, if not unlawful. Additionally, Babcock Street is a significant street and to restrict properties bordering on Babcock Street to a one unit per forty acres AG -1 zoning classification would appear to impose an unreasonable and impractical classification. 3. It is my understanding that the major reason for the revisions in the Future Land Use Map and the classifications thereon was to make the Land Use Map and the potential developed -out density as reflected thereon consistent with the projected population of Indian River County as reflected in other elements of the Plan. Apparently, this required the one unit per forty acre classification and possibly required the inclusion of property into an agricultural category that would be more reasonably and properly "planned" in another category. I question this approach to planning and the necessity or logic being applied. 4. Although the Future Land Use Element under Objective 6 entitled "Agricultural Protection"---indicates--the-desire and goal to protect, promote and conserve agriculture, it is our opinion that Objective 6.12 under the Conservation Element, which essentially requires 25% of uplands to be preserved and undeveloped, would be directly contrary to the;stated goals of promoting agricultural development and opportunity to develop a citrus grove. From a very real and practical viewpoint, there is virtually no undeveloped land in Indian River County suitable for agricultural purposes which does not already have substantial environmentally sensitive lands and wetlands which are required to be preserved under the authority of various Federal, State and local bodies. Typically, lands environmentally sensitive and wetlands will eliminate 10 to 25% (and in some cases a great deal more) of the gross property proposed for citrus development. Application of the 25% of remaining uplands pursuant to Conservation Objective 6.12 provides a very real obstacle to the ability to develop citrus groves. Relating these general comments specifically to the Platt Estate properties, a contract is presently being consummated which would call for a citrus development on most of the land (designated as parcel 111" on the attached sketch), an approximate 1800 acre tract lying West of Road 507. We know that we are faced with environmental issues and application of Conservation Objective 6.12 will reduce the developable acreage to a point that it may not be economically feasible for the project to go forward. The provisions for an alternative impact fee affords no relief and in fact requires a landowner to pay the county for the privilege of exercising ownership rights to the landowner's own (not the County's) property. This appears to me to be contrary to basic American private property rights. 5. The points, comments and concerns expressed in Paragraph 4 above concerning Conservation Objective 6.12 as it relates to agricultural lands are also applicable, from a legal and property rights viewpoint, to non-agricultural developments. The thoughts and comments which I have expressed above are to some extent general but also are specific to the Carson Platt Estate properties. Please be advised that Darrell McQueen, of McQueen & Associates, and Bruce Barkett, of Collins, Brown & Caldwell, plan to appear and address the Board of County Commissioners at -the--meeting- on Tuesday. They have been authorized and engaged to speak on behalf of 58