5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_I MAY 0 5 19921 d00K 86 GE ctd Approval of the proposed AG -2 to AG -1 amendment would double the potential impact on those ditch roads. Based upon recent events, it can be expected that residents in these areas will demand that the county maintain and eventually pave these roadways. A similar situation exists with respect to drainage in this area. _ Although a 1 unit/5 acre density is extremely low, no. coordinated drainage system of swales and easements exists in this area to accommodate runoff from the potential 5 -acre lots and channel it to the canals. At the transmittal hearing for this proposed amendment request, the Fellsmere Farms Water Control District, the District's consulting engineer, and the county public works staff all recommended against the.proposed amendment based upon road and drainage problems. Both the water control district and. the public works department indicated that past experience shows that purchasers of the proposed split lots will demand action by the county and district to improve road and drainage conditions. It was their position that doubling the number of lots without providing for infrastructure creation and maintenance would make a bad situtation worse. Because the owner of the subject property could double the density of this land without providing even minimal infrastructure requirements, the county would risk the creation of an inadequate situation. Based upon county regulations, the staff would be obligated to issue building permits to the split-created�,S-acre tracts without adequate facilities if this redesignation were approved. Staff identified this issue and presented it to the Board of County Commissioners during the transmittal hearing for the proposed amendment. At that time, staff thought that the County could change its land development regulations to require owners of large tracts to provide at least minimal infrastructure improvements when creating additional building parcels through lot splits. Based upon that condition, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the request. Subsequent to plan amendment transmittal, planning staff, public works staff, and county attorney staff coordinated with the applicant's attorney to draft appropriate LDR language to ensure infrastructure improvements when lot splits occur under circumstances similar to those with the subject property. After considerable effort, staff determined that such an amendment could r. not be drafted. Neither staff nor the applicant's attorney could identify LDR language which would address the infrastructure issue but limit the applicability only to large tracts such as the subject property. As an alternative, the applicant's attorney pursued another option recommended by staff. This involved establishing a property owners association (POA) for the subject property, said POA having authority and responsibility to make infrastructure improvements to the site. As proposed by the applicant's attorney, the legal POA documents would be drafted and held in escrow by the county attorney, to be recorded after approval of the amendment request. That process would avoid contract zoning prohibitions. While staff agreed to this procedure, staff does not agree with the substance of the proposed deed restrictions and POA covenants. Planning staff, public works staff, and county attorney staff all agree that, as drafted, the proposed legal documents will not solve the property's infrastructure problems. It is staff's position that the proposed documents are not sufficiently structured to ensure that roads will be built and maintained and that drainage will be accommodated. 100