11/12/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas In assessing land use compatibility for the subject request, it is staff's position that even though -there is a difference in the magnitude -of change between the existing AG -2 and the proposed AG- -a- G - the potential adverse effects in terms of land use cot Vatihilitr with adjacent properties are not substantially different. The principal -difference involves residential development densities. The difference between AG -2 and AG -1 is not easily perceived in the field, since both 5 -acre tracts and 10 -acre tracts are large, houses are dispersed, and compatibility problems are minimal. Of more concern with respect to this request is the potential for more redesignation requests for AG -2 property. While no major compatibility problems occur between AG -2 and AG -1 properties, the AG -2 designation does provide benefits in terms of sprawl reduction Nov 12 1991 51k, -1 moi. 4, F-H,GE 0 proposes to develop the property with rural residential development at one (1) unit per five (5) acres, the proposed request is consistent with policy 1.8 and the agricultural land use designation policy. Potential Impacts on Environmental Quality Under either the present AG -2 land use designation or the proposed AG -1 designation, the property could be developed for bonafide uses, with the result being a loss of the site's ..agricultural natural resources. In that agriculture is exempt from the county's the agricultural native upland preservation set-aside requirement, little local control for native upland development scenario affords protection. f Residential development, however, would be subject to county upland protection regulations, under either the AG -1 or AG -2 designations, `since the upland set-aside requirements apply to any development on °parcels five (5) acres or larger in size. t j The i'provisions of LDR Chapter 928 implement the policies of _ y: conservation objective 5 of the comprehensive plan, pertaining to FF wetland and deepwater habitat protection. Such regulations apply to d .-residential development, as well. agricultural uses an Therefore, wetland impacts will be subject to local regulatory :control at the time of site development, regardless of the r , development type, and the proposed land use designation changez would have no effect on wetland protection. ;The policies of conservation objective 7 of tho comprehensive plan Haddress the protection of wildlife habitat, particularly "critical" ;a�= habitat state or federally listed rare flora and fauna species. k .of .As previously mentioned, an environmental survey of the overall F property has not been conducted as of this time. However, the of LDR Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, require 0 .,provisions a developer .to conduct .an environmental survey prior to site " development, to identify any rare species occurring on site. M. `Moreover, Chapter 929 requires a developer to coordinate with state Y and federal wildlife agencies to protect listed rare species to the x� extent feasible, as applicable.r .70 `It shouldbe noted that the environmental survey provisions of Chapter 929 (and associated species/habitat protection requirements) do not apply to bonafide agricultural uses. However, conservation policy 7.1 of the comprehensive plan commits the Y county to conducting (in the near future) a county -wide rare -. species survey, which will alert applicable regulatory agencies to potential development/critical habitat protection conflicts. In comparing the existing land use designation to the proposed revised designation, this matter is not an effective issue, in that potential land uses under either designation are equally exempt or controlled. Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas In assessing land use compatibility for the subject request, it is staff's position that even though -there is a difference in the magnitude -of change between the existing AG -2 and the proposed AG- -a- G - the potential adverse effects in terms of land use cot Vatihilitr with adjacent properties are not substantially different. The principal -difference involves residential development densities. The difference between AG -2 and AG -1 is not easily perceived in the field, since both 5 -acre tracts and 10 -acre tracts are large, houses are dispersed, and compatibility problems are minimal. Of more concern with respect to this request is the potential for more redesignation requests for AG -2 property. While no major compatibility problems occur between AG -2 and AG -1 properties, the AG -2 designation does provide benefits in terms of sprawl reduction Nov 12 1991 51k, -1 moi. 4, F-H,GE 0