12/12/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• The current land use designation of the Clontz property and other similarly situated properties allows several viable uses. Those uses include, but are not limited to, agricultural uses, institutional uses, and residential uses. For that reason, there is no need to provide relief. • Analysis of growth projections and vacant land within the urban service area indicate that there is more than enough vacant residentially designated land within the urban service area to accommodate growth beyond 2020. For that reason, there is no need to add more residential land to the urban service area. • The use of public road and canal rights-of-way as urban service area boundaries has several advantages including reducing incompatibilities by separating agricultural and residential uses. • Maintaining the current land use designation patterns and urban service area boundaries preserves agricultural land and the rural character of land outside the urban service area. • In 2005, as part of the state required evaluation and appraisal process, the county will begin examining its entire comprehensive plan including population projections and vacant land absorption rates. That is the most appropriate time to reexamine adding land to the urban service area. This alternative has previously been rejected by the Board, primarily because it does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz, Essentially, Alternatives 1 and 2 propose an extension of the existing suburban development pattern. That pattern, often characterized as suburban sprawl, inefficiently uses land and other resources because it results in extremely low density, single use developments which are remote from work, shopping and recreation opportunities, are not interconnected, and are not pedestrian friendly. Because land which is currently outside of the urban service area currently has a maximum density of only ane unit per five acres, the county has the opportunity to ensure that future growth in that area occurs in a non -sprawl manner. This can be done by allowing increased density in that area only if development meets certain non -sprawl design standards. One way of doing that is by enacting the Rural Village alternative or some other similar land use option. Now is the time to consider the future land use pattern of the area that is currently outside the urban service area. Ifthe existing urban service area is expanded and that land is redesignated to one of the existing land use categories or a comparable category , property owners will acquire certain property rights to develop their properly at a higher density and in a conventional sprawl pattern. Once such a land use change is made, the Bert Hams Property Rights Act limits the county's opportunity to impose additional restrictions. Regardless of those factors, it is important to note that there is no single perfect land use pattern that implements atl comprehensive plan policies; eliminates all incompatibilities; efficiently uses land, infrastructure, and public services; provides "relief' to Clontz and other similarly situated property owners; and preserves agricultural resources, natural habitat, and open space. In fact, several land use scenarios may achieve some or all of those goals. Regardless of what land use pattern the Board chooses, however, land use disputes will not be eliminated. Moving land use designation boundary lines may reduce incompatibilities, but it will not eliminate them. With that in mind, several alternatives have been presented. Attachment 7, Summary of Alternatives, describes each alternative and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative. December 12, 20 BI{{I�PG44i