Laserfiche WebLink
ell <br /> lK <br /> n e Fk �y; -•k J y , •, F a€ ,.y a p;'r x . ..a.' bk r s <br /> r <br /> ay< , ` . ol, r <br /> xap � a <br /> Site Development Options <br /> Recent legislation in the State of Florida ( the Bert Harris Property Rights Act) gives land owners <br /> certain rights associated with their property ' s land use designation . With the passage of the Bert <br /> Harris Property Rights Act, land owners may petition for compensation when the development <br /> potential of their property is reduced . In other words , if either the O ' Haire or the staff proposal is <br /> adopted, it cannot be "un-done" in the future without compensating the property owner. <br /> In addition to several agricultural , recreational , and institutional site development options , owners <br /> of agriculturally designated land have the following two residential site development options : <br /> 1 . They can create a subdivision of five - acre lots . <br /> 2 . They can create a subdivision of one-acre or smaller lots ( at a I unit/5 acres density ) <br /> clustered together on a portion of the site . The remainder of the site can be used for <br /> agriculture , open space, or recreational amenities . <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> Regarding this issue , the Board of County Commissioners has the following three alternatives . It <br /> is important to note that although Alternatives I and 2 both redesignate land to the T desienation . <br /> the meaning of the T designation is different for each of those alternatives . Ultimately , the T <br /> designation will be defined by the Board of County Commissioners when it considers the associated <br /> text amendment. <br /> Alternative 1 : The O ' Haire Proposal. This alternative redesignates Subject Properties1 . 2 , and <br /> 3 , a total ± 164 . 1 acres , from AG- 1 to T. For this alternative , the T designation is as described in Mr. <br /> O ' Haire ' sro osal . <br /> P P <br /> Alternative 2 : Staff Proposal. This alternative redesignates ±892 acres from AG- 1 to T. For this <br /> alternative , the T designation is as described in staff s proposal . <br /> Alternative 3 : Do Nothing. This alternative is to not amend the Future Land Use Map at this time . <br /> Alternative 3 recognizes that expanding the USA at this time is premature and that owners of land <br /> outside the USA currently have development options and do not need additional relief. This <br /> alternative allows the county to continue to monitor the situation and study other proposed solutions . <br /> Although often narrowly described as a question of what Mr. Clontz can do, this issue has many "Bi2 <br /> Picture " and "Long Term" implications . Alternative 3 recognizes the advantages of a cautious <br /> approach toward USA expansion . This can allow a more permanent solution . In contrast. <br /> Alternative 1 is a temporary solution since many additional USA expansion requests will follow, and <br /> the Board will have no basis to deny those requests . Although Alternative 2 can be a permanent <br /> solution , it will not end incompatibilities or pressure to expand the USA . <br /> As has been noted in previous staff reports , the Board now has an opportunity to significantly <br /> influence the development pattern in this part of the county . The Board can use that influence to <br /> implement a pattern that promotes compatibility , efficient service delivery , and agricultural <br /> preservation ; or the Board can give up that influence and risk creating a sprawl type development <br /> pattern . Due to state law, a decision now would be extremely expensive to change in the future . <br /> L <br /> JUNE 512001G <br /> tG 16 <br /> - 94 - <br /> 7 7 <br /> i= , <br /> x F F P r r <br /> el <br /> w 4 Gn l F xx Syr ✓'' K a <br /> 'i. v" j- <br /> .. {� _ . , ] -�,- s >Ywrv. . i.., n. c¢ �!"` n� . ...4 .. , Lt , .� . _ < � .. _ .. . � a .. .x <br /> - . ._ . . . _ .- . . . . .. .Em . .. . ., . ._ . . . , _ e <br />