12/12/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALTERNATIVES This section discusses the following four Board of County Commissioners' alternatives. u • .. ... .... :...of Count Cnrnrnirsioners the Ortoher ' wnrkrhop meeting proposal .wly focused to provide relief only for• 'Haire's clients. • An alternative Transitional Ar a�nronocal s proposal attempts to provide relief to owners of agriculturally designated tracts of land located in fast growing areas, without creating incompatibilities. • A Rural Villages iLR°C�l -This proposal is an innovative option to preserve agricultural/rural areas. • A No Chang�nronosal _This proposal involves maintaining the current urban service area boundary until more study indicates a need to expand. Each of these alternatives accomplishes different objectives --some focused on one narrow issue, some focused on broad policy issues. At previous Board meetings, several objectives have been mentioned, including the following: • providing relief for Clontz; • providing relief for similarly situated owners of small tracts of agriculturally designated land; • preserving active agricultural operations; • preserving open space and "rural" character; • limiting conflicts and incompatibilities; • using existing roads more efficiently; • using existing water and sewer lines more efficiently; • using public services, such as police and fire protection, more efficiently; and • directing development away from flood prone areas. When considering the alternatives, it is important to first determine objectives. One consideration is that, as long as the county has an urban service area boundary, there will be property owners who wish to move it. In other words, expanding the urban service area boundary at this time will not end disputes about its location. Alternative 1: Mr. O'Haire's Transitional Area Proposal The proposal presented by Mr. O'Haire is brief and vague. In fact, it is not clear that the proposal will even provide relief for Mr. Clontz. While calling for a minimum of 20 acres, the proposal does not specify whether that refers to parcel size, district size, or some other criteria such as ownership boundaries. Clearly, when considered as individual parcels, neither parcel comprising the Clontz site meets the 20 acre minimum size criterion. The entire site, however, could meet the 20 acre minimum size criterion if the parcels were combined into one parcel. There are also more substantive issues related to Mr. O'Haire's proposal. Most importan t among those issues is that the proposal is nan•owly structured to include property owned by Mr. O'Haire's clients and exclude nearly all other property. This type of "piece meal" plan amendment does not address the larger problem of small agriculturally designated tracts located at the edge of a fast growing suburban area. In fact, because the county must treat similar parcels similarly, Mr. O'Haire's proposal would likely generate a "domino effect" of additional land use amendment requests. Although Mr. O'Haire's proposal establishes narrow criteria to differentiate his clients' property from other similarly situated property, those criteria are arbitrary and not substantive. December 12, 2000 107 BK 1 16 PG X37