10/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

boot 96 PAJE 486 Potential Impact on Environmental Quality County environmental permitting requirements, including wetland regulations and the 108-158 native upland plant community set-aside requirement, are the same under either commercial/industrial or residential land use designations. Only Subject Property 1 contains environmentally significant land. Although most of that site consists of abandoned citrus groves, and therefore has been disturbed, there are approximately 1.6 acres of scrubby flatwoods on the site. Due to the presence of the scrubby flatwoods, development of Subject Property 1 under either the existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land use designation would be subject to the county's 108-158 native upland plant community set-aside requirement. Compared to commercial/ industrial use, however, residential development may be more likely to preserve the native habitat areas for their aesthetic value. Additionally, Subject Property 1 may contain protected gopher tortoises. For this reason, an environmental survey would be X84u1.`red 'Pripr'site development. Any gopher tortoises determined by the survey to exist on the site would have to be relocated prior to site development. As with other environmental- regulations, these provisions apply under both the commercial/ industrial and the residential land use designations. Since Subject Properties 2 and 4 have been used for citrus groves, and therefore have been disturbed, development of those sites under either the existing residential or the requested commercial/ industrial land use designation would have no significant negative environmental impacts. Since Subject Property 3 has also been disturbed, development of that site, regardless of the land use designation, would also have no significant negative environmental impacts. For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no significant detrimental effects on the environment at any of the subject sites. The ORC Report Comment and Staff Response The Department of Community Affairs' Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report comment states that the county should do a complete and cumulative traffic analysis for each of the proposed land use amendments. County LDRs, however, require that the county do such a traffic analysis only for land use amendment and rezoning requests that increase the density or the intensity of the use of land. That traffic analysis is done as part of the concurrency review. When there is no increase in density or intensity, a project or plan amendment/rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review. Since it has been demonstrated that there is no density or intensity increase associated with this request, there is no need for a traffic analysis. It is important to note that a detailed and specific concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any development on any of the subject properties. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand, and will contain a traffic analysis. October 24, 1995 M 102 M