5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F, MAS 0 5 1992 BOOK` a `D While the DCA ORC Report indicated that the data and analysis for the subject amendment request did not support the need for increased residential development, this objection was partially based upon incorrect population numbers referenced by DCA in its ORC Report. By noting that the most recent projections by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) show a projected county population of only 140,800 by 2010 while the. county plan shows a projected population of 177,000 for that year, DCA implies that the county should lower not increase densities. However, DCA's comparison is incorrect. Since the county's 177,000 number reflects resident and seasonal population while the BEBR number addresses only resident populations the comparison is inaccurate. It is staff's position that the data presented above adequately show that the amendment, if approved, would have a negligible effect on the county's residential allocation ratio. Future Land Use Policy 1.8 Future Land Use Policy 1.8 states that the agricultural land use designation is intended for uses such as agricultural uses, recreation uses and residential uses. Since the subject property is located outside the urban service area and the applicant 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. Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 1 Pursuant to. Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 1, planning staff wrote to the City of Fellsmere in August, 1991, requesting comments on the proposed amendment, (Attachment 6). In 'addition, planning staff sent a follow-up letter in April 1992, requesting a response from the City. Since planning staff has received no response from the City of Fellsmere, staff's position is that the City holds no objection to the proposed amendment. Potential Impacts on Environmental Qualitv Under either the present AG -2 land use designation or the proposed AG -1 designation, the property could be developed for bonafide agricultural uses, with the result being a loss of the site's natural resources. In that agriculture is exempt from the county's native upland preservation set-aside requirement, the agricultural development scenario affords little local control for native upland protection. 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. The provisions of LDR Chapter 928 implement the policies of conservation objective 5 of the comprehensive plan, pertaining to wetland and deepwater habitat protection. Such regulations apply to agricultural uses and residential development, 'as well. Therefore, wetland impacts will be subject to local regulatory control at the time of site development, regardless of the development type, and the proposed land use designation change would have no effect on wetland protection. The policies of the conservation element of the comprehensive plan address the protection of wildlife habitat, particularly "critical" habitat of state or federally listed rare flora and fauna species. As previously mentioned, an environmental survey of the overall Property has not been conducted as of this time. However, the provisions of LDR Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, require a developer to conduct an environmental survey prior to site development,„. to identify any rare species occurring on site. 98 M