Laserfiche WebLink
E7 I <br />It is staff's position that the applicant wants to create 88 lots <br />without incurring the cost of any infrastructure improvements. <br />Without the proposed amendment, this cannot be done. Staff feels <br />that, if the amendment is approved and the lot splits occur, then <br />the county will receive numerous complaints from future residents <br />regarding roads and drainage problems. <br />Alternatives <br />Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has identified a <br />major concern with the proposed change. In the following section, <br />alternatives available to the applicant and alternatives available <br />to Board of County Commissioners are identified. <br />- Alternatives to the Applicant <br />Based upon its review, it is staff's position that the applicant <br />has two alternatives for development of the subject property. <br />These are as follows: <br />1. The applicant can develop the subject property with the <br />current 1 unit per 10 acre, AG -2, agricultural land use <br />designation; or <br />2. The applicant can continue to pursue the land use amendment. <br />- Alternatives for the County <br />There are two alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners <br />concerning the applicant's request for a comprehensive plan <br />amendment: <br />1. Deny this request to amend the Future Land Use Map from AG -2 <br />to AG -1. <br />2. Approve this as requested by the applicant. <br />Conclusion <br />Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major <br />incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. In <br />addition, staff has determined that no negative impacts will occur <br />as a result of the requested land use change. Also, staff has <br />found that the proposed amendment meets applicable concurrency <br />requirements and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />Finally, staff feels that all of the DCA ORC report objections have <br />been addressed. <br />It is staff's position, however, that the infrastructure issues <br />associated with this request are significant enough to warrant <br />denial. Along with the Fellsmere Farms Water Control District and <br />the county public works staff, planning staff feel that the <br />proposed amendment should be denied. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County <br />Commissioners deny this request to -change the land use designation <br />of the 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1. <br />101 <br />� fy� <br />GO rr1uC • i <br />