4/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternatives The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to consider regarding the subject property. c The Board of County Commissioners could approve the request and rezone the subject property to A-1. This would allow the applicant to develop the entire ±26.5 acre parcel with agricultural uses and would not require any buffer for the Green Acres Estates Subdivision. c The Board of County Commissioners could deny the requested rezoning, thereby retaining the property's existing RS -3 designation. Conclusion The rezoning is generally compatible with the surrounding area, is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, and is exempt from concurrency review. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for low density residential and continued agricultural uses and has met all applicable criteria. Staff support the subject request with the recommendation that the Board direct the staff to initiate an amendment to the LDR's to require that groves proposed on vacant land within the urban service area and adjacent to existing residential subdivisions provide a buffer to protect the subdivision. RECONNENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from RS -3 to A-1. Staff further recommends that the Board direct the staff to initiate an LDR amendment to require groves proposed within the urban service area and adjacent to a residential subdivision to provide a buffer between the existing subdivision and the proposed - agricultural operation. Commissioner Scurlock asked what the buffer is for, and Director Keating explained it is to protect the subdivision from the potential adverse effects of agriculture operations, such as ground level and aerial spraying and the general noise and activity associated with grove operations. Discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of a 50 -foot buffer between a subdivision and an active grove. Commissioner Scurlock felt it does not protect the subdivision from the aerial spraying. Commissioners Wheeler and Bird agreed and added that with strong winds the buffer does not protect from ground level spraying either. Commissioner Bowman asked about the impact on shallow wells, and Director Keating responded that they did not particularly study that point, but Commissioner Scurlock assured her that pesticides and chemicals do not cause the problems they once did. Commissioner Wheeler cited some existing situations where groves are adjacent to subdivisions and cause no problems. 43 mnK APR 14 1992