11/4/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr- -I BOOK 103 PAGE 80 R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. of 5920 1" Street SW commented from the following notes: My name is R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. I live at 5920 V St SW which is bordering the southeast 1/4 section of Section 17 of Township 33S, Range 39E; lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. This 40 acre section is located between 4'a Street and 1g Street SW on the west side of 58' Avenue. It is presently the only property between these streets, 58' and 66' avenues for one mile, designated as Rural (R). All other properties in this Township section are designated as agriculture, AG -1. I consider the Rural designation for this property as incompatible with the surrounding agricultural land. I understand that there is an effort being made by the county planning department to further increase the density of this land from Rural to L-1 or 3 units/acre. I would rather see the designation of this portion of Section 17 returned to agriculture which would be compatible with all surrounding land designations. This parcel is now being used as grazing land and has never been used as residential land. I also understand that this parcel is included in the Vero Beach Urban area although land north, south and west of it is not. The eastern boundary is 58 th avenue and the Lateral B Canal. The loss of this land as agricultural land indicates a effort fQr. the plawiktg depmumn to change the designation of agricultural land to urban housing even though it would be very incompatible with all surrounding land. Increasing the housing densities on this land from Rural to L-1 would further degrade this property from its potentially productive agricultural status. Loss of agricultural production in Indian River County is apparent and of concern. I find the following deleterious implications in redesignating the southeast 1/4 section of Section 17 as L-1: I. Three units per acre is extremely incompatible with the agricultural designation of all surrounding properties. This will permit 120 housing units, or at least 240 people, to occupy the pasture presently used by a dozen Brahman cattle. 2. The resulting higher housing densities will increase suburban runoff into the Lateral B Canal which is a major tributary of the Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance and the most biologically diverse estuary within the continental United States, containing the most endangered aquatic species. This runoff has been demonstrated to deleteriously effect the biological resources of the state of Florida. A couple of years ago I addressed another Indian River County Commission on which most of you served. I addressed another piece of property, over 60 acres adjacent to my property, which was converted from a cow pasture and orange grove into a 6 unit per acre development. This property was completely surrounded by orange groves and bordered by Lateral B Canal and the South Relief Canal, a major freshwater source to the Indian River Lagoon. I lost my argument for reduced densities and that development is now going in. Houses will soon be constructed. This means that if you vote today to increase housing densities and change the designation of the land behind my home I could have over 600 new neighbors (conservative estimate of two people per unit) within 400 yards of my front door when before I had orange groves and cattle. When I complained about the traffic problem this would create across the street from me the county planner, Mr. Keating, told me at that time it was better for a road to have hundreds of people traveling on it than for many roads to have a few people traveling as it improves road maintenance. I fail to see his reasoning, as I did last week when Mr. Keating stated that increasing land housing densities prevents urban sprawl. With this reasoning this planning department and the county commission will continue to pave this County, a process which is readily apparent today. You say this is not going to be Miami. Have you ever been to the Dadeland Mall in Miami? The only difference with ours is that ours is newer, appears larger and has more parking spaces. With the increased housing densities and eradication of agricultural land in Indian River County you will certainly insure that like Dadeland Mall in Miami, I will have to drive around looking for a parking space in the future. Of course this is what this Commission wants. Does this commission have any commercial realestate interests in Indian River County? Would this commission prefer more land sales, housing, urbanization, suburbanization? NOVEMBER 4, 1997 84