My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/20/1997
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1997
>
5/20/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:04 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:09:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/20/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- Costs <br />Compared to other physical barriers, plantings are less expensive. <br />Overall, plantings are an extremely small portion of site <br />development costs. <br />Restricting Agricultural Activities within the Urban Service Area <br />This alternative could include prohibiting aerial spraying, <br />restricting the hours of aerial spraying, and regulating the <br />location of irrigation pumps. Agricultural operations would assume <br />the burden of providing this alternative. The justification for <br />imposing these restrictions on agricultural uses would be that land <br />in the Urban Service Area is intended for urban, rather than <br />agricultural uses. <br />A problem with this alternative involves the State of Florida's <br />Right to Farm Act, Chapter 823.14, Florida Statutes. This <br />provision of state law ensures that existing agricultural <br />operations that conform to generally accepted agricultural and <br />management practices may continue. One means of addressing this <br />problem would be for the residential developer to pay for some or <br />all of the additional costs incurred by the agricultural use. <br />- Effectiveness <br />All of the benefit of this method is received by the residential <br />property. With respect to agricultural impacts on residential <br />uses, this method effectively mitigates noise and spraying, and <br />moderately mitigates odor. With respect to residential <br />development's impact on agricultural uses, however, this method <br />does nothing to reduce trespassing, vandalism, or caribbear. fruit <br />fly host plants. <br />- Costs <br />The cost of this alternative cannot be reliably assessed, because <br />costs depend upon site conditions. Costs could be minimal, if they <br />relate only to enclosing a pump motor or restricting hours of <br />spraying. In some cases, however, costs could be higher. <br />LPIFT-, Ar -3 0 Y = T� <br />The following matrix describes the effectiveness of various <br />alternatives used to mitigate the referenced impacts. <br />•Property Rights <br />Government must carefully consider any action that may reduce the <br />value of property. Although the argument could be made that each <br />of the these alternatives could reduce property values, adding <br />physical barriers is clearly the most defensible. That alternative <br />does not actually restrict or limit the use of property. <br />- - - <br />While reviewing current planning literature on conflicts at <br />agricultural/residential borders, staff determined that some <br />jurisdictions use nuisance disclaimers. Similar to the county's <br />existing avigation easement provisions for new residences being <br />located near existing airports, nuisance disclaimers notify <br />potential owners of non -agriculture property that abuts <br />agricultural areas of possible adverse impacts associated with <br />normal agricultural practices. Usually, nuisance disclaimers, <br />which should be in the form of recorded easements, notify <br />homeowners that formal nuisance complaint charges against standard <br />MAY 202 1997 <br />23 <br />PHYSICAL SEPARATION <br />PHYSICAL BARRIER <br />RESTRICT AG. <br />ACTIVITIES in the USA <br />EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />USUALLY EFFECTIVE <br />MODERATELY EFFECTIVE <br />ODOR <br />EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING <br />MODERATELY EFFECTIVE <br />USUALLY EFFECTIVE <br />VERY EFFECTIVE <br />SPRAY <br />EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING <br />MODERATELY EFFECTIVE <br />USUALLY EFFECTIVE <br />VERY EFFECTIVE <br />NOISE <br />EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />HOST PLANTS <br />EFFECTIVENESS @ MITIGATING <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />MODERATELY EFFECTIVE <br />INEFFECTIVE <br />TRESPASSING d VANDALISM <br />BURDEN OF MITIGATION FALLS <br />RESIDENTIAL OR <br />RESIDENTIAL OR <br />AGRICULTURAL OR <br />ON RES. OR AG. <br />AGRICULTURE <br />AGRICULTURAL <br />RESIDENTIAL <br />COST <br />VERY EXPENSIVE <br />INEXPENSIVE <br />VARIABLE <br />•Property Rights <br />Government must carefully consider any action that may reduce the <br />value of property. Although the argument could be made that each <br />of the these alternatives could reduce property values, adding <br />physical barriers is clearly the most defensible. That alternative <br />does not actually restrict or limit the use of property. <br />- - - <br />While reviewing current planning literature on conflicts at <br />agricultural/residential borders, staff determined that some <br />jurisdictions use nuisance disclaimers. Similar to the county's <br />existing avigation easement provisions for new residences being <br />located near existing airports, nuisance disclaimers notify <br />potential owners of non -agriculture property that abuts <br />agricultural areas of possible adverse impacts associated with <br />normal agricultural practices. Usually, nuisance disclaimers, <br />which should be in the form of recorded easements, notify <br />homeowners that formal nuisance complaint charges against standard <br />MAY 202 1997 <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.