6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I JON I S 1991 BOOKS,FACE �1p� II. THE DESIGNATION OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES IS INCONSISTENT WITH URBANIZATION WHICH DIRECTLY SURROUNDS THE FELDMANS' PROPERTY, The Feldmann' property fronts on the west side of Seth Avenue. North of the Feldmann' property (also located west of Seth Avenue) is a tract of land, approximately one quarter of a section in size, which permits 6 units to an acre under the L-2 land use designation. The only difference between this undeveloped property and the Feldmann' property is that the L-2 designated property abuts a waterline which also can be made immediately available to Feldmann' property through a normal water main extension. Under such circumstances, the Feldmann' property (and that of their neighbors immediately to the west) should be permitted a rural designation as a transition to the land uses to the south. Certainly it cannot be argued that rural use on the Feldmann' property constitutes "urban sprawl" when land uses further to the west, in the area of 74th Avenue, are designated for use at three units ped acrg. Rural use on the Feldmann' property would also be consistent with land uses immediately to the east of 58th Avenue, which are designated on the proposed comprehensive plan for 3 units per acre under the L-1 land use category. It is respectfully submitted that the time to correct ;inequities and errors in the proposed comprehensive plan is at the !adoption hearing. If the change makes sense, as this one does, it ;ought to be addressed now and not left to future amendments. LF, - luI 7k 0 g ll � A- M Mr. Feldman indicated on the chart the property is located immediately south of that parcel of land that is indicated on the amended plan for six units to the acre and if this plan goes through his property will be downgraded to one unit per five acres. Commissioner Eggert asked if this is used for citrus. Mr. Feldman said he had tried citrus and had leased it to a gentleman but it was not successful. It is a vacant piece of land not presently being used. Mr. Feldman wanted the opportunity to argue, and related that his attorney advised that any argument with meaningful public participation which would occur at this juncture is almost without basis, in that meaningful public participation cannot occur when the decision has already been mandated under penalty of sanctions, and the County Commissioners feel they really have no alternative under the joint stipulation agreement. It was his understanding and his attorney's understanding that the Commission is in a position now to have to adopt a plan at this hearing without change, or face the loss of nine million dollars in state funds. He requested the opportunity to raise his objections, now or later on when the other people who have previously submitted objections to the amendment get an opportunity to speak. He would like his property to be exempt from changes to the designation in the pending master plan. Chairman Bird felt there was a question whether the Board had the latitude or authority to make any additional changes today, or 48 - M M