11/4/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 103 PAGE 302 much of this land may be devalued forcing owners to liquidate at distress prices properties that once provided incomes for families and security for their futures. Most grove owners recognize the limitations of these older groves and would welcome relief in the form of recovering the value these properties once held as both development properties and viable agricultural ventures. The idea that residential development has a cause and effect relationship in increasing crimes such as trespassing and vandalism is absurd. This property is ideally situated and suited for land uses which would provide a reasonable transition from the interuive land uses located to the west to the less intensive land uses located to the east of the property along the Oslo Road corridor. OBJECTIVE 14 PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Care must be taken to insure that regulatory activity is consistent with the protection of private property rights. This mistake or oversight in the Comprehensive Plan of not including this segment of Oslo Road in the Urban Service Area has resulted in economic hardship to property owners who had purchased land which had residential land use anticipating that the close -in location of the properties would allow them to eventually convert these agricultural properties to development. This directly was a motivating factor for many in purchasing these properties for not just their agricultural value but their underlying real estate value. The question of whether or not this amounts to a taking by government is increasingly arising in the courts. Recent legislation, the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Act, has strengthened the position of owners of private property with regard to asserting their rights under the act Although local government actions on amendments to the comprehensive plan are not included in this act, much attention has been directed at government actions which eliminate all economically profitable use and devalue private property. CONCLUSION In their report staff has stated that development dictates the location of services in Indian River County. While this may be partially true of large scale development such as the Indian River Mall, it is not true of the majority of development which must have facilities in place in order to be economically feasible. It is also contrary to Policies 1.32, 1.37, 2.2, 2.5, 2.9, and Objective I of the Plan, which are intended to discourage urban sprawl by directing efficient and compact development into areas in which urban services are available and can readily be expanded. Staff continues to rely on "increased cost of public services and facilities", "urban sprawl', and "negative environmental impacts" as part of their argument for denial of this request. These issues, by staffs own admission, do not apply to the subject property and should not be considered in deciding this request The requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment conforms fully with the three requirements of Policy 13.3. If we assume that agricultural land use was appropriate 7 years ago when the plan was adopted, we can still conclude that the substantial changes in cimunistances that have occurred since then warrant the inclusion of the subject property within the USA Boundary today. Staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intensive use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, thereby satisfying the concurrency test. The request conforms with Objective 1, efficient and compact land use which reduces urban sprawl; Policy 1. 1, excepting the USA Boundary; Policy 1. 13, that the land lies east of 1-95; Objective 2 and Policy 2.2, contains the necessary infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development; and Policy 2.5 promotes efficient development by requiring connection to existing facilities. The single area of nonconformity with the policies sighted in Staffs report is that the subject property is not located within the Urban Service Area Boundary, although it is completely surrounded by the Boundary. The request meets the definition and requirement of Future Land Use Element regarding Urban Services and the delineation of Urban Service Areas as "Those areas in which these services have been made available and deliverable." The subject property meets this burden of proof and should be included within the Urban Service Area Finally, we would consider amending our request to a less intensive residential land use (L-1) or (R) to facilitate our request. We respectfully request the Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners to support the requested land use amendment and transmit this comprehensive plan amendment to the Department of Community Affairs together with a recommendation that the Urban Service Area Boundary be modified to include the subject property and to conform with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 66