4/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 1 �,i2 It seems reasonable that, if subdivisions proposed adjacent to existing active agricultural areas must provide a buffer to reduce the incompatibility, then active agricultural operations proposed adjacent to existing single-family subdivisions should also provide a buffer. This is based on two assumptions. The first is that an agricultural/residential incompatibility exists, while the second is that the intruding use, whether it be the agriculture or the residential, should provide the buffer. If these assumptions are incorrect and buffers are not needed between agricultural and residential uses, then the buffer requirement applicable to subdivisions proposed adjacent to agricultural operations should be eliminated. Since groves generally have perimeter roads and ditches and because intruding residential uses must provide a buffer from these groves, it seems that the ditch/road separation does not constitute a sufficient buffer. Therefore, when an active agricultural operation is proposed adjacent to already platted lots, the only way that an adequate buffer can be provided is for the agricultural operation to provide it. The major difference between applying the buffer requirement to agricultural and residential uses is procedural. While buff eryards for residential developments are established at the time of site plan or subdivision approval, at present that cannot be done with agricultural uses because such uses are not subject to development review. Similarly, a buffer requirement cannot be imposed on a rezoning approval because that would constitute conditional zoning, a practice not allowed. While planning staff felt that retaining the existing RS -3 zoning on the easternmost 50 feet of the subject property would create an adequate buffer to reduce the agricultural/residential incompatibility, the attorney's office has ruled that unacceptable. It is the attorney's position that retaining the 50 foot strip as RS -3 would contitute inverse condemnation. Given the attorney's position, planning staff acknowledges that the proposed 50 foot RS -3 buffer would not be allowable. With the RS -3 buffer alternative not allowable, there is only one way by which the rezoning can be approved and the adjacent residential lots be protected. That would involve changing the county's land development regulations to require groves proposed adjacent to existing residential subdivisions in the urban service area to provide buffers. With more interest being shown in establishing citrus groves on vacant tracts within the urban service area, staff feels that it would be appropriate to create an LDR provision to require buffers for groves proposed adjacent to existing residential subdivisions. With such a regulation, agricultural rezonings could be approved and adjacent, existing residential subdivisions could be protected. 42 M M M