3/20/2001 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Since Policy 6.5's restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants could also benefit the many active citrus groves within the urban service area. those restnctions should have been applied countywide Limiting the provisions of Policy 6.5 to agriculturally designated land constitutes an oversight. For that reason. the proposed amendment expanding the restrictions on Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. The proposed amendment involving utility service to agricultural areas also corrects an oversight. In that case. the county previously overlooked the fact that juice making plants and other legitimate approved agricultural businesses located on agriculturally designated land may need centralized utility services to operate. For that reason. the proposed amendment allowing utility service to agricultural Areas meeting certain criteria meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 Summary of Consistency with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 Each proposed plan amendment is necessary either because of a change in circumstances or to correct an oversight. Therefore, each meets either the second or the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. For that reason. all of the proposed amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Optional Agricultural PDs Future Land Use Element Objective 6 promotes the preservation of active agricultural operations. Conventional wisdom indicates that clustered residential development of agriculturally designated land preserves agricultural operations by allowing most of the property to continue to be used for agriculture. Except for a few large tracts, however it is not feasible for Indian River County farmers to use a portion of their land (even up to 80%) for agriculture, while another portion contains residences. Due to incompatibilities. residences on a portion of a site essentially prohibit agricultural use of an entire site. Therefore clustering does not protect agricultural operations: and eliminating the clustering requirement does not impede agricultural protection For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 6. The proposed amendment is also consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.3. That policy requires development at densities greater than 1 unit/5 acres to be located within the urban service area. The proposed amendment does not change any densities or land use designations. In fact, by allowing 5 acre lots along the urban service area boundary, the proposed amendment discourages urban service area expansion. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plants Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and its policies promote protection of active agricultural operations in the county. Future Land Use Element Policies 6.3 and 6.4 specifically protect agriculture within the urban service area. The proposed amendment also works to protect agriculture within the urban service area. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and Future Land Use Element Policies 6.3 and 6.4. Utility Service to Agricultural Areas The proposed amendment is consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 2.4 and Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 2.4. Those policies commit the county to providing utilities to areas of the county where the lack of utilities is determined to be a health risk. The proposed amendment March 20, 2001