5/18/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Development of Policy 5.8 When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the county determined that, with respect to the development of agriculturally designated areas, there were three alternatives available to discourage suburban sprawl and to protect open space and agricultural uses. Those alternatives, exclusive agricultural zoning, extremely low density residential development, and clustered residential development, are discussed below. One of the sprawl control alternatives that the county examined was exclusive agricultural zoning within agriculturally designated areas. That alternative limits uses in agricultural areas to traditional agricultural uses, like farming and ranching. With exclusive agricultural zoning, residential uses are allowed only as accessory uses. Consequently, the only residential uses allowed with this type of land use designation would be a grove owner's house, a ranch owner's house, or farmworker housing on parcels sufficiently large to allow for a viable agricultural operation. Although exclusive agricultural zoning within agriculturally designated areas is an effective suburban sprawl control strategy, there are issues associated with that alternative. One issue relates to preservation of active agricultural operations. For agricultural operations to be sustained, farmers often must borrow money. Since farmers usually use their land as collateral, reducing the value of the land threatens their ability to secure a loan, establish a crop and therefore to maintain active agricultural operations on their land. Because the value of the land is primarily derived from the permitted residential density of the land, restricting residential development indirectly reduces the feasibility of active agricultural operations on that land. The other issue relates to private property rights. With exclusive agricultural zoning, there are few use options for land outside the urban service area That raises property rights issues, since some land owners may have property that is not suitable for agricultural uses and therefore have no economically viable uses for their property. For those reasons, this alternative was not chosen. A second alternative that the county examined to discourage suburban sprawl and to protect agricultural uses involved limiting residential development on agriculturally designated land to extremely low densities such as 1 unit/40 acres or 1 unit/20 acres. That alternative also is an effective sprawl control alternative. As with exclusive agricultural zoning, this alternative severely limits the use options for land outside the urban service area and thereby raises property rights issues. For that reason, this alternative was not chosen. The third alternative that the county considered was the one that the county ultimately adopted. That alternative allows slightly higher residential densities, but requires clustering of residential lots. By implementing project design requirements, such as those incorporated in policy 5.8, the county has been able to protect active agricultural operations and protect private property rights without encouraging suburban sprawl. Impacts on Agricultural Lands One purpose of policy 5.8 is to protect and conserve agriculturally designated lands for agricultural uses. This is important because agriculture is a key component of the county's economy and of the character and history of the community. Statistics from the 1998 Florida c atisti al Absit t demonstrate that both the state and the county are losing active agricultural lands. The number of acres of active agricultural land in the state decreased by 428,013 acres (from 11,194,090 acres to 10,766,077 acres) or 3.8 percent, during the 1987 to 1992 time period. Active agricultural land was lost at a greater rate in Indian River County. During that time period, the amount of active agricultural land decreased by 20,998 acres (from 195,671 acres to 174,673 acres) or 10.7 percent. Since economically productive agricultural land is less likely to be converted to other uses, productive agricultural land serves as a limit to urban development. For that reason, maintaining the economic viability of agriculturally designated land is also an important factor in combating suburban sprawl. Policy 5.8 protects agriculture by requiring that no more than 20% of the area of Agricultural PDs be used for residential purposes and by limiting uses on the remaining land to agriculture, open space, and limited recreational uses. As a result, most of the land within an Agricultural PD is large enough for, and available for, agricultural uses. In contrast, the proposed amendment allows large tracts of land to be divided into many parcels, each as small as five acres. Because those parcels are too small to farm profitably, those parcels could be used only for residences and accessory uses. MAY 189 1999