Laserfiche WebLink
booK 84 FacE 1SZ <br />and agricultural preservation. This occurs because the low AG -2 <br />density reduces the number of dwelling units allowed and provides <br />for large minimum parcel sizes that can accommodate productive <br />agricultural operations. <br />Regarding compatibility then, it is staff's position that the <br />proposed AG -2 to AG -1 change would not create significant <br />compatibility problems. <br />Infrastructure <br />Although the concurrency rule provides a mechanism to ensure that <br />off-site infrastructure will be adequate to support a proposed <br />development, this requirement does not address on-site facilities. <br />Since the county has strict site plan and subdivision controls <br />within its land development regulations, on-site infrastructure <br />provision is seldom a problem. In this case, however, the proposed <br />redesignation of 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1 does present a <br />problem. <br />:- <br />Since the entire property was divided into 10 -acre tracts by the <br />Fellsmere Farms plat of reclamation, each of these tracts is <br />considered a lot of record. As a separate lot, each 10 -acre tract <br />could be split one time without the need to comply with county <br />subdivision regulations - if the land use designation for the <br />property were changed from AG -2 to AG -1. The result would be a <br />" <br />doubling of the number of lots (and people) in this area without <br />any provision for necessary facilities. <br />As referenced in the descriptions section of this report, the plat <br />iy <br />of reclamation which created the 10 -acre tracts on the subject <br />� <br />.property <br />did not provide for.adequate roads or drainage. Roadways <br />in this area are ditch roads and are either in ditch (Fellsmere <br />Water Control District) rights-of-way or.on private property. In <br />' <br />either case, all property owners do not have legal rights to use <br />I, <br />t t'' <br />these roads. <br />Approval of the proposed AG -2 to AG -1 amendment would double the <br />�. <br />potential impact on those ditch roads. Based upon recent events,* <br />A�;: <br />it can be expected that residents in these areas will demand that--., <br />the county.maintain and eventually pave these roadways. <br />A similar situation exists with respect to drainage in this area. <br />�a <br />Although a 1 unit/5 acre density is extremely low, no coordinated <br />drainage system of swales and easements exists in this area to <br />accommodate runoff from the potential 5 -acre lots and channel it to <br />the canals. <br />Because the owner of the subject property could double the density <br />of this land without providing even minimal infrastructure <br />requirements,. -the county would risk the creation of an inadequate <br />_ <br />situation. Based upon county regulations, the staff would be. <br />obligated to issue building permits to the split -created 5 -acre <br />2V` <br />tracts without adequate facilities if this redesignation were <br />approved. <br />Alternatives <br />Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found a number of <br />concerns regarding the 888 acres. In the- foilowiiig sec' lons,- <br />alternatives available to the applicant and alternatives available <br />to Board of County Commissioners are identified. <br />- Alternatives to the Applicant <br />Based upon its review, it is staff's position that the applicant <br />has two alternatives for development of the subject property. <br />These' are as follows: <br />1. The applicant can develop the subject property with the <br />52 <br />_ M M <br />