10/9/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Another factor that should be considered involves land use compatibility. Land outside the urban service area is often described as rural or rustic in character. Land uses in that area usually consist of agricultural activities or residences on large (5 acres or more) lots. In contrast, most land inside the urban service area consists of residential areas with a density of three to eightunits/acre. It is clear that urban/residential and ruraUagricultural uses often generate complaints and conflict when they abut or are located in close proximity. Generally, the use of road and canal rights-of-way as urban service area boundaries effectively separates urban and rural areas, thus reducing potential incompatibilities and maintaining the rural character of land outside the urban service area. Alternatives 1 through 5, however} propose that the county allow urban uses to cross those physical boundaries. If the county enacts one of those alternatives, uses that were previously separated by a right-of-way will share a property line. As a result, several changes will likely occur. First, there will be a loss of the rural character of areas outside of; but near, the urban service area. Expanding the urban service area would allow subdivisions of three or more units/acre to abut farms, ranches, and previously secluded five and 10 acre homesites. Another change that would likely occur is that the previously separated rural and urban uses that share a property line would begin to interact. Such urban/mrai interaction often results in conflict. This type of incompatibility and loss of rural character of land adjacent to urban areas often causes owners of agriculturally designated land to request that their land be redesignated to an urban designation. Because that agriculturally designated land is not substantially different from the abutting urban designated land, it is difficult to deny those requests. Another change associated with Alternatives 1 through 5, involves the land use designation of land added to the urban service area. Because similar uses are most compatible, the land use designation of the land on the side of the road already inside the urban service area is usually appropriate. With that guide, Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 would result in additional L-1 designated land. Because growth projections and other analysis indicate that there is sufficient land within the urban service area to accommodate growth beyond 2020, Alternative 6, no urban service area expansion, is a viable alternative. Alternative 6, however, does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz. Of the alternatives that provide relief to Mr. Clontz, Altemative 1 will have the least impact on the county's overall land use pattern. The analysis indicates that Mr. Clontz's need for relief and the county's need for additional urban land has not been demonstrated Because the Clontz parcel is not unique, it may be difficult to Justify adding only that parcel to the urban service area. Besides discouraging infill development within the urban service area, expanding the urban service area will likely result in loss of rural character and increased incompatibilities along the new boundary. Of the six alternatives identified, staff supports Alternative 6, no urban service area expansion. While this alternative does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz, the other five alternatives do provide that relief. Of those alternatives, Alternative 1, at least in the short-term, will have the least impact on the county's overall land use pattern. Staff recommends Alternative 6, no expansion of the urban service area at this time. ATTACHM M 1. Staff Report for the July 11, 2000, Clontz Public Hearing 2. The Florida Right to Farm Act October 9, 2000 12