HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 07 07 Regular
,.
Robert J King, member
July ih 2005
Initial written comments to the proceedings of the
EAST RURAL AREA PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE
The following comments are to help clarify for the record my oral comments to
staff and commissioners, some made at the last meeting ofthe committee on June 16th
and commission meeting June 27th. These are also my observations about the task at hand
and the pitfalls we may encounter.
Follows is my review ofthe Winter Springs resolution # 2005-09 that formed the
committee. . .. . ..
Sections I and II
Mission and Vision statement are good, and could be interpreted in a very positive
manner, but there is also a clearly stated assumption that "population growth" is to be
"accommodated" in the study area. While population growth is indeed a factor in urban
Central Florida, it can not automatically be assumed that it will be allowed or encouraged
in the rural study area at higher density than is currently adopted in the approved
comprehensive plan.
This committee should not allow this subjective assumption to in any way limit
or influence the selection offinal recommendations.
Section VI
The analysis criteria and the four 'Land Development Scenarios' called out in the
resolution were a good starting point to allow the city Commission to initiate the study
and begin discussion. They are somewhat limited in being able to analyze all possible
future options, and should be considered as 'general guidelines' rather than hard and fast
final choices or options. The city Commission has been very clear in its direction that
flexibility and inclusion are their intent in the function of this committee, and that no
limits are to be placed on the options to be explored.
This committee should not allow the specific language of this tguideline'to in
any way limit discussion or potential considerations.
Throughout the resolution document;
The word "transitional" is used heavily throughout the entire document. The
definition ofthe term is the subject of much controversy and legal maneuverings. The
importance of this cannot be emphasized enough, as the final product of this committee's
effort is to write and adopt a "Transitional" Development Code.
The controversy of defining and interpreting "transition" seems to revolve around
whether the area identified as transition is permanent or temporary. Does it mean that it
provides a permanent 'buffer' between two different areas and is required permanently to
make the abstract areas compatible? Or does it mean that this "transition" area is in a
state of flux and is only temporarily required or expected to remain at its assigned
,..,1"
intensity? Vague definitions can be twisted into whatever meaning the person wants them
to be at the moment and can confuse many people into believing that some large
concession may have been made, only to find out later that it was quite meaningless.
Before this commiUee begins discussion it is critical that a clear, and fIXed
definition be assigned to the words tttransition ", "transitional" and "transitioning" and
to allfuture use of them in conjunction with this committee's work.
I would also like to comment on some of the other peripheral implications of
potential annexation of lands currently governed by the County comprehensive plan,
Rural Area Plan, and Land development code. . . . . ...
First, the City of Winter Springs currently does not have comparable Land Use
Designations for Rural density (3,5,10 acre lots) to make any annexation a lateral move.
Any annexation will require an increase in intensity (change of land use designation) on
the parcel or would require that the city adopt new Rural Land Use (3,5,10 acre lots)
categories into their plan. This really pivots on the city commissions mindset, whether
they view all land annexed as ultimately becoming urban, or if they by policy endorse the
commitment to the land remaining rural. This is a policy decision that needs to be clearly
articulated and documented to prevent future commissions from reneging on the
commitment.
Even under the best conditions annexation into a municipal boundary sets into
motion many mechanisms that, on their own, preclude sustainable rural land uses. Most
significantly is the U.S. Census Data that automatically lumps all lands within a
incorporated city as urban lands. This federal designation affects the data that is used to
make many decisions at the regional, state and federal levels such as road, utility, and
growth projections and service areas. It is truly a snowball effect; there is absolutely no
such thing as a benign annexation.
Another subject that appears to have wide disparity of policy is the land use and
zoning categories in which Commercial Agriculture is allowed to exist and operate. The
County's perspective is that it is a compatible use in many categories while the city views
it as a generally incompatible use, except in a commercial zone. This has led to city lands
being converted to commercial designation, under the pretense that the code requires the
change if the owner wishes to continue Commercial Agricultural use of the parcel.
The study area is comprised of lands that were long ago drained and converted
from their natural state and environmental function. This was done clearly for the
purposes of agriculture and have been operated since that time as agricultural lands. The
environmental regulation and tax relief that have been extended to these properties
historically were granted as incentive to continue agricultural viability of the land. To
drain the same swamp or clear-cut that much land for other uses such as housing or
commercial use would be met with significantly stricter regulation, especially in today's
world. The presence of Agriculture on the property is not a viable reason for the city to
assert that the Land Use or Zoning designation must be changed to Commercial to make
the use "compatible". The city will need to resolve this conflict before annexing any land
that may wish to retain its tax exempt Agricultural Status.
Thank you for the opportunity to make comment to the study,