5/18/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

py BOOK . � As described previously in this staff report, when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the county determined that its preferred development pattern is one that is efficient and compact, maintains the overall low density character of the community, and protects active agricultural operations and private property rights without promoting suburban sprawl. At that time, the county examined alternatives to implement that pattern, and policy 5.8 was developed through that process. During the evaluation and appraisal process, the county reviewed policy 5.8, and determined that it does protect active agricultural operations and private property rights without promoting suburban sprawl. Therefore, there is no mistake or oversight associated with future land use element policy 5.8. Finally, there have been no new developments or changes in circumstances that wan -ant an amendment to future land use element policy 5.8. For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not meet any of the criteria of future land use element policy 14.3 and is not consistent with future land use element policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Goal and Objective 1 The goal of the future land use element and objective 1 of that element both emphasize the importance of a controlled, orderly, compact and efficient land use pattern that efficiently uses public facilities and services. Infill development is important for the creation of an efficient and compact land use pattern. Such a land use pattern has the following advantages compared to one without infill development: • it can reduce traffic congestion; • it is less expensive to serve with public services such as roads, utilities, schools, libraries, emergency medical care, and police and fire protection; • it works to preserve agricultural lands; and • it works to preserve environmentally rare and important land. In this case, the proposed amendment discourages and inhibits infill development of vacant residentially designated land. That situation is due to market factors. Because residentially designated land generally has a higher value than agriculturally designated land, it is economically advantageous for a developer to buy less expensive agriculturally designated land and convert it to residential development. This request essentially proposes that the plan be amended to allow large lot residential subdivisions on agricultural land outside the urban service area. While subdivisions of five -acre lots are an inefficient land use regardless of whether or not they are located within the urban service area, they are essentially a residential, not agricultural, use and are more appropriate within the urban service area Such uses are currently permitted, and land is available, on residentially designated land within the urban service area. By allowing large, evenly dispersed lots (as opposed to smaller, clustered lots) with no provisions to preserve open space or agricultural uses outside the urban service area, the proposed amendment discourages development of more expensive vacant residentially designated land that is within the urban service area. For those reasons, the proposed amendment does not encourage an efficient and compact land use pattern and is not consistent with the goal of the future land use element or with objective 1 of that element. Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and Policies 1.9, 1.10, and 6.2 Policies 1.9 and 1.10 describe the purpose of the Agricultural land use designations, as well as where they should be located, and which uses are allowed within them. Policy 1.9 states, "rhe Agricultural Land Use categories will ensure the continuation of the agricultural industry, protect agricultural lands from urban encroachment, and provide valuable green and open space." While objective 6 sets an active agricultural retention target of 135,000 acres, policy 6.2 states, "ro protect and conserve agriculturally designated lands, Indian River County shall maintain its development regulations which control the division and development of agriculturally designated lands." Agricultural uses need large tracts of land to be economically viable. By clustering residential development and setting aside at least 800/a of a parcel for agricultural use and/or open space, the existing policy 5.8 encourages the maintenance of tracts of land that are large enough to be farmed in an economically viable manner. In this way, the existing policy encourages and protects agricultural uses and is consistent with these policies and objective. In contrast, the proposed amendment allows large parcels to be divided into tracts too small to be fanned in an economically viable manner. Rather than protecting agricultural lands, the proposed amendment would allow the conversion of agricultural land to residential "ranchettes". MAY 189 1999