Laserfiche WebLink
11.A.1. AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS <br />(CLUSTERING) - DISCUSSION <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 2000: <br />TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator <br />TMEE/NT�HEEAD CONCURRENCE <br />Robert M. Keating, AICD; Comm dnnity Development Director <br />THROUGH: Susan Rohani, AICP; Chief, "n//g-Range Planning <br />FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning / <br />DATE: March 27, 2000 <br />RE: Discussion of Agricultural Planned Developments <br />7t is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County <br />Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 4, 2000. <br />Over the last several months, the Board of County Commissioners has considered both county policy and <br />specific projects involving residential development on agriculturally designated land. Policies 1.10 and 5.8 <br />of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan regulate land use and development on <br />agriculturally designated land. Consistent with those policies, all residential subdivisions of two or more <br />lots (other than a one time lot split) on agriculturally designated land must be approved as Agricultural <br />Planned Developments (PDs). One of the requirements for Agricultural PDs is to cluster residential lots or <br />homesites on a relatively small portion of the overall project property. The remainder of the site, regardless <br />of its ownership, must remain in open space (either as natural; agricultural; or to a limited degree, <br />recreational areas) for as long as the property retains an agricultural land use designation. <br />In Indian River County, clustering has been broadly interpreted and applied. For that reason, Agricultural <br />PDs have been designed in a manner that results in "unclustered" five acre lots with homesites "clustered" <br />near a road. No approved agricultural PD has a large open space area owned by a single entity. <br />Past Actions <br />During the last year, several proposals involving kgricultural PDs have been considered by the Board of <br />County Commissioners at public hearings. In reviewing those proposals, the Board questioned whether <br />residential subdivisions located on agriculturally designated land should be required to cluster. <br />Issues raised at those public hearings include the following: <br />Should clustering be required for Agricultural PDs? <br />APRIL 49 2000 <br />0 <br />-98- 0 <br />