Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code Rural Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citizens and commissioners press for clearer rural protection zone, LDC changes
Summary
Public commenters and board members urged the county to restore and clarify the rural protection boundary and strengthen the land-development code, including limits on minor subdivisions and clearer mapping so residents can tell whether land is in the rural protection area.
Public commenters and county leaders pushed Santa Rosa County to tighten and clarify its rural protection zone and related Land Development Code (LDC) rules during a committee meeting, citing farmland preservation, infrastructure limits and confusing boundary lines.
Speakers at the meeting — members of a county land-development code task force and residents — said the existing rural protection line had been extended in a way that made it hard for residents to tell whether property fell inside the protected area. They urged the board to move the boundary back to a clearer road-based marker and to leave higher-density development out of the rural protection area.
"I would like to commend the Commission for it appearing to come to some consensus on ... to extend the transition zone and boundary of the RPZ back to where it was originally," said James Hedrick, a resident and task-force participant, who said he supported returning the transition zone to its prior location.
Sherry Chapman, a resident of P. Ridge, told commissioners that the rural protection line should be easy for the public to identify and that variances should be avoided. "It used to be at Berry Hill Road and it took a big jump to go up to 182," Chapman said, adding that people do not know where fire lines or other non-road markers are located.
Chris Curb, speaking from the Crescent Lake area, urged the county to give the rural protection zone "teeth" and recommended allowing limited flexibility for agricultural-family conveyance subdivisions while forbidding alternate (higher-density) subdivisions in agricultural zoning. Curb suggested reinstating a controlled family-conveyance mechanism, with affidavits to prevent commercial subdivision of family lots — a change he said was in the previous LDC and removed after abuse.
Several speakers and commissioners also raised infrastructure concerns, saying roads, drainage, water and fire protection must be in place before approving new development. County staff and task-force members said the LDC task force is studying minor subdivisions, conservation communities and rural protections and will return recommendations for board workshops.
No ordinance or regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting. Commissioners and staff indicated they would hold further workshops and that the land-development code task force may reconvene or be supplemented to address outstanding issues.
