10/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issues raised at those public hearings include the following: • Should clustering be required for Agricultural PDs? • Is there any benefit, generally, to the clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated land? and • If there is a benefit generally, does that benefit apply to small tracts? At the October 14's workshop, the Board will consider future development options for the county's agriculturally designated lands. Based upon that consideration, the Board should identify any needed changes to the county's policies and procedures regarding development of agriculturally designated lands. Requiring residential projects in agricultural areas to cluster residences is intended to achieve the following goals: 1) Preserve and accommodate active agricultural operations; 2) Preserve open space; 3) Reduce agricultural/residential incompatibilities; 4) Accommodate long-term growth, including potential urban service area expansion; and 5) Protect private property rights. The analysis section of this staff report discusses how the county's clustering requirements achieve those goals. When the comprehensive plan was considered for adoption in 1990, the county adopted certain goals, including discouraging suburban sprawl, protecting open space, and preserving agriculture. With respect to the development of agriculturally designated areas, the county determined that there are three alternative ways to achieve those goals. Those alternatives (exclusive agricultural zoning, extremely low density residential development, and clustered residential development) are described below. Exchisive Agd=&..a1 Zoning, This alternative limits uses in agricultural areas to traditional agricultural uses. Exclusive agricultural zoning is an effective strategy to reduce development pressure, and residential encroachment into agricultural areas. The county, however, determined that exclusive agricultural zoning adversely affects financing for active agricultural operations and adversely affects private property rights. Due to these conflicts, the exclusive agricultural zoning approach was not used. Extremdy L.ow Density Residential DMWL12nment. This alternative limits residential development to extremely low densities such as 1 unit/40 acres. As with exclusive agricultural zoning, this alternative would severely limit land use options and thereby raise property rights issues. For that reason, this alternative was not chosen. Clustered Residential Devel ,nment This alternative allows slightly higher residential densities, such as 1 unit/5acres, but requires clustering of residential lots or homesites. By implementing project design requirements, such as those incorporated in county policies, the county has been able to protect active agricultural operations, preserve larger expanses of open space, and protect private property rights. OCTOBER 14, 1999 -15- BOOK ill ME 16