2/6/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 97 PAPE 271 applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District and a county wetland resource permit, prior to issuance of a land development. permit. Environmental planning staff have no objection to special exception use and preliminary plan approval. 14. Buffers: Given that the surrounding area. is presently used for and is designated for agricultural purposes, no special buffering is required under the planned development LDRs. Since the A-1 district minimum 30' yard setbacks exceed the 25' planned development perimeter setback, the 30' A-1 district setback will control and is being applied to the yards that are not located along the project's east and south perimeter. Along the project's east and south perimeter, a 50' setback is recommended to be applied in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation previously described. While section 915.16 does not require a perimeter buffer, a double frontage buffer is required pursuant to LDR section 913.09(6)(c)5 and section 913.09(3)(c)5, since the proposed subdivision road is on the project perimeter. Presently, there is a row of Australian Pines which straddles the shared east property line of the property. The applicant is not required to remove these nuisance trees since removal involves more than the project site. Therefore, the existing trees may remain and will satisfy the double frontage road buffer requirements. The applicant has indicated that he would like to remove these trees, if an arrangement can be worked out with the adjacent property owner. If the trees are removed, a suitable buffer would be required to be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the subdivision improvements. The buffer would need to provide a 6' opaque feature within 3 years. The required buffer will need to be preserved and maintained, or a replacement buffer, approved by staff, will need to be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion. 15. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant Issue: The existence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants near active citrus groves can adversely affect protocol approval of grove fruit. To help eliminate such potential adverse impacts, staff generally requests that developers of projects near active citrus groves coordinate with the agricultural extension agency and establish deed restrictions to prohibit host plants to the Caribbean Fruit Fly (see attachment #6) from occurring on the project sites. To date, such efforts have been strictly voluntary on the part of developers. After the host plant issue was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, planning staff, the deputy county attorney, and the owner of citrus property adjacent to the Trails End site met to discuss the county's options in requiring a prohibition of host plants on the Trails End site and enforcing such a prohibition. Staff concluded that there are three possible means that the county could use to directly address the host plant issue: 1. Prohibit host plants on the Trails End site and rely on code enforcement action if host plant problems arise. 2. Require a deed restriction on the Trails End lots that prohibits host plants. 30 FEBRUARY 6, 1996