5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Moreover, Chapter 929 requires a developer to coordinate with state and federal wildlife agencies to protect listed rare species to the extent feasible, as applicable. It should be -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 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, the staff determined that 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 major difference between the existing AG -2 land use designation of the subject property and the proposed AG -11 the potential adverse effects in terms of land use compatibility with adjacent properties would not be significant. 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 and agricultural preservation. This occurs because the low AG -2 density reduces the number of dwelling units allowed and provides for large minimum parcel sizes that can accommodate productive agricultural operations. Regarding compatibility then, it is staff's position that the proposed AG -2 to AG -1 change would not create significant compatibility problems. Infrastructure Although the concurrency rule provides a mechanism to ensure that off-site infrastructure will be adequate to support a proposed development, this requirement does not address on-site facilities. Since the county has strict site plan and subdivision controls within its land development regulations, on-site infrastructure provision is seldom a problem. In this case, however, the proposed redesignation of 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1 does present a problem. Since the entire property was divided into 10 -acre tracts by the Fellsmere Farms plat of reclamation, each of these tracts is considered a lot of record. As a separate lot, each 10 -acre tract could be split one time without the -need to comply with county subdivision regulations - if the land use designation for the property were changed from AG -2 to AG -1. The result would be a doubling of the number of lots (and people) in this area without any provision for necessary facilities. As referenced in the descriptions section of this report, the plat of reclamation which created the 10 -acre tracts on the subject property did not provide for adequate roads or drainage. Roadways in this area are ditch roads and are either in ditch (Fellsmere Water Control District) rights-of-way'or on private property. In either case, all property owners do not have legal rights to use these roads. 99 P 1992 BOOK